Monitoring heart rate during exercise for maximum effectiveness

So, you’re exercising. And perhaps, you want to get a good approximation of how many calories you burned during your workout. You go online, pull up an exercise calorie calculator, and that’s when the puzzle begins. Aerobic exercise, light effort? Moderate effort? Vigorous effort? By whose measure?

There’s only one way to cut through the subjectivity: start monitoring your heart rate.

Aside from getting a better picture of how many calories you are burning, keeping an eye on your heart rate during cardiovascular exercise may actually mean the difference between an effective or an ineffective workout. Depending on your goals, there are certain ranges where you should keep your heart rate steady for what you’re trying to achieve.

The idea is that everyone has a maximum heart rate — some top of the scale where your poor little heart could not beat faster if it wanted to. Working out at a certain percentage toward the top has different effects on how your body operates during exercise.

The commonly accepted ranges are as follows:

Maintain: 50-60% of maximum. There’s certainly nothing wrong with getting exercise in this category, but it’s not going to do anything to improve your overall health. It’s not vigorous enough to get the calorie-burn rolling. Still, it IS movement, and it means you’re not being sedentary, and that is far better than sitting.

Light: 60-70% of maximum. This is fat-burning territory, a nice place where your body is looking to peek into your fat stores for energy moreso than hunting down carb/sugar-based energy. This isn’t going to do a whole lot for stamina, but this is the place to start for weight loss.

Moderate: 70-80% of maximum. This is where your heart really starts pumping and you start building a strong cardiovascular system. This is the optimum range recommended for most cardio training as this is where stamina begins to increase. You’re burning fat here too, but your body will look for additional carbs to supplement the energy needed as you’ll also be doing some muscle toning.

Hard: 80-90% of maximum. Now you’re getting to the point of anaerobic activity; working out in this zone takes a lot of work and (at the upper end) can start a buildup of lactic acid in your muscles as you are not able to take in enough oxygen to flush it out fast enough. Training in this range is great as a part of interval training or for short challenges.

Max: 90-100% of maximum. This isn’t recommended unless you’re a career athlete, and even then, only for short bursts. It can be utterly painful. Stay out of this category unless you’re being medically supervised or following a training program that is of an exceptional level.

Granted, if you’re very out of shape, you want to work your way up the ladder a bit.

While that’s great knowledge and all, the fun part is figuring out what your maximum heart rate is. And honestly? You can’t know without taking a treadmill stress test supervised by a physician. However, there are some good ways to come up with a good approximation.

You may have heard of a formula that says your HRmax is 220 minus your age. Well, even the guys who came up with that formula say it’s bunk. They used it very loosely as a rough guide, but certainly not something that could be used for clinical purposes. Unfortunately, it’s now the standard used all over the place, including in a lot of heart rate monitors on the market. Many formulas have been gleaned to find the right median for individuals in an age group. Here are a few:

Kolata: HRmax = 205.8 – (0.685 × age)
Londeree-Moeschberger: HRmax = 206.3 – (0.711 × age)
Miller et al.: HRmax = 217 – (0.85 × age)
Tanaka: HRmax = 208 – (0.7 × age)
Gulati et al.: HRmax = 206 – (0.88 × age)

In other words, LOL.

According to this crazy woman who has done 14 Ironman triathlons and has a graduate degree in exercise physiology (I like those credentials), here are some ways to physically test yourself for an HRmax approximation:

Walk a Mile Track Test: Using a school or gym track, speed-walk four laps. On the fourth lap, periodically take your heart rate and find your average. For an HRmax approximation: if you’re in poor shape, add 40; fair shape, 50; good shape; 60.

Step Test: Using an 8-inch step, step up first with one foot and then the other, and then repeat back down. You should be aiming for a steady 20 sets per minute. During your third minute, check your heart rate and determine an average. For an HRmax approximation: if you’re in poor shape, add 55; fair shape, 65; good shape, 75.

(Note: if you are in excellent cardiovascular condition, this is probably not going to be anywhere remotely accurate for you.)

The best home-brew thing you can do is to take the results of your home testing and an average result from all of those formulas and find a comfortable working level; if your testing numbers are far below or far above your formula calculations, those should have more weight (unless you’re over/underestimating your existing fitness level — take that into consideration). And all that math and walking and stepping is a whole lot cheaper than a clinical test, right?

Or you can cheat like I did and get a heart rate monitor that does some testing for you. It’s likely no more accurate, but hey, I didn’t have to go up and down a stupid step for three minutes.

So, what to do with this information? More friggin’ math. Remember the percentage ranges above? Take that HRmax number and start multiplying. This will give you solid ranges so that when you are checking your heart rate, you can tell what level of exhertion you are putting out — and whether you need to pick up the pace or slow it down a bit.

And now, the bigger question: how in the heck do you monitor your heart rate? In my next article, I’ll go into the depths of the world of heart rate monitors. Personally, I find them to be an essential piece of equipment for anyone who is looking for consistency in their workouts. Plus, they’re shiny.