EAT MOAR FAT! I'm finally GETTING it. page 38

[healthy11]

Re Dotty Byrd's previous post - A lot of people actually work far to hard far too often when exercising. That CW of working yourself into the ground to get any gains. The HR monitor is a great tool to actually hold you back when training. Even someone relatively unfit following Mark's advice to go hiking could end up at far to high a heart rate to get the benefit of fat burning (I know, I train some quite obese people and even a brisk walk has them spluttering and wheezing)

Maffetone is not CW, he is actually something of a 'renegade' in the training world. It is his association with Mark Allen who won multiple Hawaiian Iron Man events on his training method that really made him famous, amongst other things.

Moving fast, lifting heavy is essential, but only a bit of the time, the rest needs to be low level aerobic, and a HR monitor is a great way to speed you up or slow you down as necessary.

So which formula do you recommend... Maffetone or the top end sports one?

I'll have to pull out my heart rate monitor... haven't used it in years.

[PureFunctionalFitness]

In reality, it's your call. Maffetone is a conservative aerobic training zone, ideally don't go over the max of 180-age, and work up to 10 beats below it. I was happy working at 27-137bpm, and increased my running pace from 11:30 min miles to 9:00 min miles over 2.5 months. Not fast, but working at a low HR and being able to train for longer with no ill effects.

I would go with Maffetone, it is conservative, but you will get the aerobic adaptations, like increased mitochondria numbers and improved efficiency. It might be a slower method of getting fit, but you avoid adrenal stress and increased cortisol production (none of these a problem for our sprints and lifting, you just don't want it during prolonged aerobic activity)

[Dotty Byrd]

So which formula do you recommend... Maffetone or the top end sports one?

I'll have to pull out my heart rate monitor... haven't used it in years.

I agree...and an awful lot of people don't work nearly hard enough. You need to work out your own common sense as well. 180 - my age 130 for a maximum heart rate would be daft given that I frequently work at 170+.

[PureFunctionalFitness]

I agree...and an awful lot of people don't work nearly hard enough. You need to work out your own common sense as well. 180 - my age 130 for a maximum heart rate would be daft given that I frequently work at 170+.

But that is the point. Working at 170bpm is fine on occasions, but if you follow the BP philosophy, then you want to be working at a much lower HR for most of the time. That max HR of 130 is for your slow aerobic work, not for you occasional high intensity sprints etc

[faithy22]

I got the monitor at Big 5. It was on sale. Nothing special about it. It's the kind that straps around your chest with a little wrist watch.

To figure your max heart rate, 180-age. Then you have to answer some questions. Like if you just had major surgery or take medications, subtract 10. If you are out of shape, you have asthma or allergies, you have been getting worse in your training instead of better, you get sick often, you never exercise ever, subtract 5. If you've been exercising for a few years do it about 4x a week, not injured, subtract 0. If you are a competitive athlete and none of the other stuff applies, add 5. Then subtract 10 for your lower end. Try to exercise within that range. I guess the range is a little different if you are a teenager or over 65.

Aside from these details, his theories are really very interesting about the anaerobic and aerobic fitness. It's okay to do anaerobic exercise like weight lifting, but you have to make sure the aerobic exercise you do is truly aerobic and that you aren't going too hard and pushing yourself into the anaerobic side. Otherwise you are working against yourself.

I have yet to find someone to answer this question, but I thought I would throw it out here (and apparently hijack this thread, sorry). I've been using a heart rate monitor for years (Polar brand). My heart rate is *high*, really really high when I exercise. My resting is fantastic, if I sit down for a few minutes it's right around 60 bpm. I'm sure it's significantly lower when I wake up but I've never checked it.

I'm 32, female, and have always done some sort of exercise. If I go for a job, my heart rate skyrockets up to the 170s and easily stays there (it gets up to 190 when I do sprints). Supposedly, this is really bad, but it's where my heart rate goes and it doesn't bother me. But it's just weird that my high is sooooo much higher than most people's high. Any thoughts??

[PureFunctionalFitness]

Lots of people get high heart rates when under stress, no big deal, but if you are exercising at a moderate perceived rate of exertion BUT your heart rate is really high, then it might be worth getting checked over. I would say that in all out sprints, 190bpm is not necessarily unexpected at your age.

You need to perhaps work at a a much lower intensity and see what the HR does.

the Borg Scale is the general scale for perceived exertion rate, and although it was formed using 20 year olds (with an estimated max HR of 200), it works from 6-20 with correlating heart rates.

So, if you go for a hike, and estimate your exertion level at 12 out of 20, you would expect to see a heart rate of 120ish, working out at an exertion level that feels like a 19/20 (to you), 190 bpm would be the expected HR.

Give it a go, work at really a comfortable pace where it feels like a 12/20 and see if the HR correlates roughly. If you are feeling it is easy, but your HR is 170, then you might want to look into it further.

The other option is that you have a very poor aerobic base, and almost any moderate level of exercise sends your HR through the roof.

Another thing. If you warm up slowly for 15 mins or so as part of the session, building HR slowly, you will not experience sudden HR spikes, and your HR should be a lot more under control

[sbhikes]

Hey girls, It's 220 minus your age for max heart rate. Don't get too hung up on this. You're reading CW which we all know is dangerous. Heart rate monitors are great for making you move faster when you realise you're just cruising at 110 but that's all. Go with how you feel. To challenge the burn body fat wisdom it's still all about calories in and calories out. I don't remember the exact numbers because I gave up being a slave to it a long time ago but if you go at a rate than burns 50% fat as fuel and an hour burns 250 calories that's 125 calories in fat. If you work hard and burn 700 calories and you drop to 25 % fat burning you burn 175 calories in fat. It's always been the case that change takes effort. There's an awful lot of fat people in the gym walking or cycling slow. The lean fit ones are moving fast and lifting heavy.

220 - age is CW. Maffetone method is much much lower than that and serves a different purpose. By "fat burning" he means activating the same machinery that ketosis or very low carb activates.

[sbhikes]

I agree...and an awful lot of people don't work nearly hard enough. You need to work out your own common sense as well. 180 - my age 130 for a maximum heart rate would be daft given that I frequently work at 170+.

No, you do not understand the Maffetone method. You are working out way too high. You are shutting off the internal processes that build good aerobic fitness and instead are relying upon anaerobic fitness.

I wore the heart rate monitor today on my bike ride to work. I am finding that my MAF heart rate is a very comfortable rate, yet still feels like I'm getting a decent workout. I found it very hard to stay below going up hills and hard to not dip too low on the flats. I do have to work a bit on the flats to stay in my range, so this is what I think it'll be effective. It's still work, not just coasting.

I think this Maffetone method really explains why anytime I've tried to use bike riding for fitness I've only gained weight and worn myself out or even gotten injured. I tend to ride way too hard and put way too much stress on myself. That stress, according to Maffetone, not only shuts off the whole aerobic fitness thing but also contributes to metabolic/cortisol problems and inflammation. Oh hell yeah do I know a lot about exercise-induced inflammation. I usually look like a bubble after I do any long duration exercise. I think this slowing down thing is going to make me much more effective at getting fit.

Sorry to change the subject from eating MOAR fat. I can try to change it back...

This is the start of week three of my return to low carb, high fat. I think I've crossed another threshold where now I eat fewer meals and when I get to dinner time I am really looking forward to a nice big meal, but after I eat it, I'm uncomfortably full. Even if the dinner is mostly salad. My eyes are way bigger than my stomach.

[Paleobird]

No, no problem about the thread detour into training methods. This is interesting info. The Maffetone method does seem to be more in line with PB principles.

Yep, MOAR fat makes two meals a day easy. I've slid towards one real meal (dinner) plus a fat-snack at lunchtime (something like an avocado or some cheese).

[OneDeltaTenTango]

I agree...and an awful lot of people don't work nearly hard enough. You need to work out your own common sense as well. 180 - my age 130 for a maximum heart rate would be daft given that I frequently work at 170+.

As sbhikes notes, you are misinterpreting the use of the Maffetone equation. 180-age is not max heart rate, but the top end of heart rate to stay in an aerobic, fat burning zone. This is not much different than move slowly ala Sisson. Mark defines that as <= 75% of max heart rate.

For me at 54, my MAF rate is 180-54= 126.

Using conventional mrh calcs and going to 75%: 220-54= 166 x 75% = 124.5

So I can use a max heart rate of 126 ala Maffetone for the bulk of my move slow or 124.5 ala Sisson. Basically consistent with each other.