I should get about 75 minutes of vigorous exercise a week (e.g. here), defined by a vigorous heart rate.
For my age, “vigorous” is defined as a minimum of X bps (using a variable to not get personal specifics in the way).
I’ve already exercised for 45 minutes this week maintaining a heart rate of X or more.
On the last day, while doing cardio, over a 20 minute period, my heart rate was mostly at a range of X-1 through X-5, dragging my average over the session down to X-7.
Have I fulfilled the 75 minute per week recommendation or not? If X-1 isn’t enough to make my exercise not count towards the recommendation, what IS the limit? I mean, I technically spent the whole session in “moderate” range, which was really frustrating, since whether my heart rate gets up to snuff seems to vary from day to day, even if I feel tired. Am I wasting my time when something like the above happens?
The recommendations are more rough guide broad targets. What heart rate is what level of intensity is itself something with huge error bars and with great discussion to be had over different techniques to determine your own heart rate max and the differences between straightforward % of heart rate max vs using a technique taking your resting heart rate into account and using % of heart rate reserve. But that is all fun for fitness nerds.
There is not actually any bright line. The general goal is the point. The guideline tries to get the point across simply and doesn’t need to be interpreted rigidly.
The first exercise chunk has the biggest impact and additional chunks each add more benefit but each a bit less. More intense has more benefit per unit of time than less intense. A little strength training added to an aerobic base plan add lots of health benefits.
One thing I discovered is that “moderate” as defined by fitness apps and gurus would be considered “vigorous” exercise by CDC or other official standards. For me it was something like anything higher than 136bpm counted as vigorous. That’s a a brisk walk. Though I guess it does depend on how fit you are overall.
This. The general rule-of-thumb guidline is your max HR is (220 - age). I’ve seen the individual max HRs (measured by testing each person) for a pro cycling team; despite about 3 yrs age difference they were 10-15 BPM different on max HR. Why? Because they’re individuals, not guidelines.
Here is a random intertubes chart. I’ve also seen them in 5 bands instead of 6 but the concept holds the same. At the top of that chart, you’re an anaerobic / non-sustainable levels; things like sprinting or max weight lift, while lower HRs are what you’d do a longer run / lift full set at.
I’ve gotta ask, is this a New Year’s resolution? Have you worked out every day? if so, it could be your body’s way of showing it’s crying, “Uncle” & it needs a day off to rest / recover.
I would suggest not using your heart rate as an estimate of exertion. It is easily affected by stress, medication, caffeine, time of day, hydration, blood pressure and many other things.
Much better is “perceived rate of exertion”. Simply rate the effort, honestly and harshly, on a scale out of ten^. Ten means you are having difficulty breathing, could not last another second or do a single extra rep, are likely sweating and cannot hold a conversation. (Pushing a car up a steep hill?). Eight feels like hard work, talking might be laboured, you could push up the effort slightly but not for very long. Most people who think they are working hard are probably really at a 7 or 7.5, they could work harder and longer but are doing something challenging.
If it feels difficult, it is probably intense enough regardless of some simplistic and very approximate calculation - the idea of “fat burning zones” and the like is too simple to be useful. If it is above 7/10 it is intense, that simple.
^ The persnickety will point out that the original scale went up to twenty, and this is the modified one. The concept is more important than its history.
I personally have been monitoring my heart rate (HR) during runs in particular lately (marathon training) but still am convinced that heart rate monitoring adds little (not no) value over ratings of perceived exertion, i.e. can I talk comfortably, not get more than a word out, etc.
I don’t watch my HR during runs much; I run easy for a long slow distance, to all out what I can run for sprints or hills, to points in between depending on the point of the run that day. I look at HR after. The most I use it during runs is to spot check on long slow days that I’m keeping my pace easy enough and not creeping up until closer to the end.
Point is that I really don’t know what my exercise heart rate should be … I have different numbers using %HR max vs % HR reserve so on, but running different distances aiming for different levels of intensity come up with the same average heart rates over similar types of runs to within two bpm.
I can run repeat five minute “sprints” that is consistently the same heart rate looked after the fact even as the pace has picked up slightly with training. Same with moderate distance runs at a harder effort. So on.
I like the tracking of progress I’m getting but I’m guessing that how hard I’m breathing is more accurately tracking to intensity level for different sorts of physiological adaptations than the broad and honestly sometimes confusing and conflicting guidelines based on HR alone.
TLDNR?
@Leaper, if you felt you were working out as vigorously each time you probably can count it that level.
You’re exercising so sweat it, but don’t sweat the small stuff!
ETA that DrP beat me to most of those points! Damn him!
Thanks for the replies so far. I honestly don’t trust my personal judgment when it comes to this kind of thing, but it seems like the best reasonable way to do this, so I guess it’s what I have to do!
The best way is very simply the way that you keep up with!
That said there is a factual answer for your OP. 45 minutes through the week plus another 20 minutes on the last day does not cross the desired goal of 75 minutes whether it is at HR X or a few beats below. It adds to 65 minutes.
Of course you’ve still made huge health impact anyway. But that wasn’t your question!
