24 years old. 220-24 *.8 = 157
80% too high? I am okay with sacrificing a very little bit of muscle for some extra fat loss. Id like to get lean quick...currently arounf 13-14% and looking to get closer to 10%
Printable View
24 years old. 220-24 *.8 = 157
80% too high? I am okay with sacrificing a very little bit of muscle for some extra fat loss. Id like to get lean quick...currently arounf 13-14% and looking to get closer to 10%
60-70% is what i would do for 45min or so
You will not see "extra" BF loss when your body is using muscle for fuel, what we want is our bodies to use Fat as fuel. I would stick to 75% max....Quote:
Originally Posted by newbrew
Last night I was doing some mild cardio on the treadmill after a leg workout(stiff deads). I was only at 60-65% which is all I need. The guy next to me was running at 8.5 and quite awhile because he was there when I started and still there after I stopped in 15minutes. I'm sure he was 80% and he looked it with no muscle mass and the look of a long distant runner. So if you wish to look like a runner then do 80%+.
You are in cardio zone at that HR. It's a great place to be if you want to increase your maximal endurance or give the ticker a good workout but for losing bodyfat it stinks. Running, or any other activity, at that intensity will strip the muscle (and fat) off you as well as rob you of your maximal strength. Prorities, you have to decide what you want to get out of training.
well beyond 160 not being good for fat loss, I'd call that downright unhealthy. I think mice get up almost that high-just playin
My cardio for warm up usually peaks at around 60% of my max. Goes up a little when I lift particulary on legs can go up to around the 80% mark sweet.
160 heartrate not to high for young, well conditioned athlete. For an elite athlete in peak condition, max heartrate for around 1 hr is about 180. This is of course all about endurance sports such as cycling, running, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy7