A Fitness & exercise forum. FitnessBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FitnessBanter.com forum » Fitness & Exercise » Aerobic
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

heart rate vs blood sugar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old October 1st 03, 04:33 PM
Harvest Mu_n
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 20 minutes to fat burning (was: heart rate vs blood sugar)

On 01 Oct 2003 04:00:38 GMT, (Isiafs5) wrote:


Well, one might think that we would burn blood sugar first. I have no idea of
how long that takes.


The fact you have no idea comes as no surprise.
  #42  
Old October 1st 03, 10:45 PM
Van Bagnol
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default heart rate vs blood sugar

In article ,
"Peter Webb" wrote:

At the risk of pushing my luck, one last observation. Your final sentence
is:

By the way, after rereading the OP's original post, I think he may be
bonking.


After all of the preceeding, this strikes me as a strange note to finish on.
Isn't "bonking" (which BTW in Australian means sexual intercourse) defined
as that state you reach when you run out of glycogen?


Well, certainly if he's "bonking" in the Aussie sense his heart rate
should go up. :-)

But that's actually a relevant example: during sex, the pulse does
become more rapid -- not entirely due to physical exertion, but due to
hormonal sympathetic response. (And hence why the idea of having sex to
burn up lots of calories is largely a myth.)

Anyway, I'm guilty of miscontinuing the discussion. I was commenting on
a subsequent post by Greg Shenaut, the OP (after having reread his
original article):

Also, once I have gone 60 or more minutes, then I begin to notice
the effects of fatigue, which for me shows up primarily in less
vigorous, smaller movements; this decrease in output tends to
cancel out the heart-rate elevation.

I've also seen this extreme elevation--sometimes toward the end
of a workout I have to slow down to a slow-to-moderate walk with
no arm involvement at all to get the heart rate out of the
clouds.


His seminal post:

Anyway, I've had reduced calories & a low glycemic diet for a
couple of months, and I exercise before breakfast. Therefore (I
presume) I have relatively low glycogen stores. When I start
exercising (I theorize), a relatively large high percentage of my
energy use is fueled by what glycogen there is, but after 30
minutes, since the levels will have fallen to a low rather level,
a relatively greater percentage of my energy use is fueled by
fat.


It struck me as odd that he'd be slowing down so relatively early into
exercise, until I realized his diet was making him characteristically
low in glycogen. It and his other symptom (drastic reduction in work
output) seemed consistent with a [fitness] bonk where his glycogen
stores are fully depleted. Of course, it could also mean he's very out
of shape, but that's up to him to decide. :-)

And didn't this whole thing start because the OP hypothesised that
his pulse rate was increasing because he was increasing the ratio of
energy derived from fat? The OP would presumably contend that people
bonking (not in the Australian sense) would have higher pulse rates
because they are burning fat exclusively.


Even if he went from pure glucose metabolism with perfect combustion to
pure fat metabolism, it would account, as the calculations suggest, for
perhaps a 10% change in HR, but he mentioned his HR going through the
roof, which sounded much greater than the 10 bpm initially reported.

Greg also talked about a "13 MET", which I'm inferring to be like the
Borg rating of perceived exertion (scaled from 6 to 20, as most other
ratings go from 1-10), which, because it's a subjective scale, may not
measure fatigue but only how hard he's worked.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
  #43  
Old October 1st 03, 11:15 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default heart rate vs blood sugar

Van Bagnol wrote (Wed, 01 Oct 2003 21:45:11 GMT):
Anyway, I've had reduced calories & a low glycemic diet for a
couple of months, and I exercise before breakfast. Therefore (I
presume) I have relatively low glycogen stores. When I start
exercising (I theorize), a relatively large high percentage of my
energy use is fueled by what glycogen there is, but after 30
minutes, since the levels will have fallen to a low rather level,
a relatively greater percentage of my energy use is fueled by
fat.


It struck me as odd that he'd be slowing down so relatively early into
exercise, until I realized his diet was making him characteristically
low in glycogen. It and his other symptom (drastic reduction in work
output)


The "drastic" reduction (and it isn't all that drastic, just noticeable
fatigue) tends to come after around 75-80 minutes of the workout, but
the rise in pulse comes arouund 20-30 minutes into it.

seemed consistent with a [fitness] bonk where his glycogen
stores are fully depleted. Of course, it could also mean he's very out
of shape, but that's up to him to decide. :-)


And didn't this whole thing start because the OP hypothesised that
his pulse rate was increasing because he was increasing the ratio of
energy derived from fat? The OP would presumably contend that people
bonking (not in the Australian sense) would have higher pulse rates
because they are burning fat exclusively.


Even if he went from pure glucose metabolism with perfect combustion to
pure fat metabolism, it would account, as the calculations suggest, for
perhaps a 10% change in HR, but he mentioned his HR going through the


Actually, around 12.5% based on the figures you posted. And, if your
initial rate ranges from 120-130 and later on ranges from 130-140,
that's actually quite a bit less than 12.5% (or 10%, for that matter).

roof, which sounded much greater than the 10 bpm initially reported.


Perhaps I exaggerated. What I meant by "through the roof" is that
at the end of a workout, it sometimes happens that my HR stays at
the 140-150 rate for quite a while, even if I slow way down.

Greg also talked about a "13 MET", which I'm inferring to be like the
Borg rating of perceived exertion (scaled from 6 to 20, as most other
ratings go from 1-10), which, because it's a subjective scale, may not
measure fatigue but only how hard he's worked.


No, a MET has nothing to do with subjectivity. A MET is the oxygen
uptake of 3.5 ml per kilogram per minutes. 13 METs means you are
burning .0169 * 13 kcal per minute per kilogram, and corresponds
roughly to running 8 minute miles (although I am doing heavyhands
walking rather than running). A useful web site that explains
about this is
http://members.aol.com/BearFlag45/Biology1A/Reviews/energy.html.

Greg
  #44  
Old October 2nd 03, 02:12 AM
Peter Webb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default heart rate vs blood sugar

No, a MET has nothing to do with subjectivity. A MET is the oxygen
uptake of 3.5 ml per kilogram per minutes. 13 METs means you are
burning .0169 * 13 kcal per minute per kilogram, and corresponds
roughly to running 8 minute miles (although I am doing heavyhands
walking rather than running). A useful web site that explains
about this is
http://members.aol.com/BearFlag45/Biology1A/Reviews/energy.html.

Greg


You still here, my glycogen deprived friend?

Actually, the 3.5 mL/kg/min is more of a derived number.

1 MET is intended to be the energy consumption of an individual sitting down
doing nothing. It "normalises out" differences in human size. A 1 MET for a
big person is (as your number show) a higher rate of energy consumption than
it is for a small person, but two people both exercising at the same
intensity (eg running at the same speed) will both be at the same MET rate,
even if their energy consumption is widely different. The figure of 3.5 is
just what is needed to make 1 MET your base (sitting on your arse) metabolic
rate.



  #45  
Old October 2nd 03, 05:57 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default heart rate vs blood sugar

Peter Webb wrote (Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:12:53 +1000):
No, a MET has nothing to do with subjectivity. A MET is the oxygen
uptake of 3.5 ml per kilogram per minutes. 13 METs means you are
burning .0169 * 13 kcal per minute per kilogram, and corresponds
roughly to running 8 minute miles (although I am doing heavyhands
walking rather than running). A useful web site that explains
about this is
http://members.aol.com/BearFlag45/Biology1A/Reviews/energy.html.

Greg


You still here, my glycogen deprived friend?


Actually, the 3.5 mL/kg/min is more of a derived number.


1 MET is intended to be the energy consumption of an individual sitting down
doing nothing. It "normalises out" differences in human size. A 1 MET for a
big person is (as your number show) a higher rate of energy consumption than
it is for a small person, but two people both exercising at the same
intensity (eg running at the same speed) will both be at the same MET rate,
even if their energy consumption is widely different. The figure of 3.5 is
just what is needed to make 1 MET your base (sitting on your arse) metabolic
rate.


Sure, but the useful thing about METs is that is makes it possible
to compare different activities in terms of metabolic intensity
(O2 uptake).

Greg
  #46  
Old October 2nd 03, 06:22 PM
Van Bagnol
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default heart rate vs blood sugar

In article ,
wrote:

The "drastic" reduction (and it isn't all that drastic, just noticeable
fatigue) tends to come after around 75-80 minutes of the workout, but
the rise in pulse comes arouund 20-30 minutes into it.

[...]
Actually, around 12.5% based on the figures you posted. And, if your
initial rate ranges from 120-130 and later on ranges from 130-140,
that's actually quite a bit less than 12.5% (or 10%, for that matter).

[...]
Perhaps I exaggerated. What I meant by "through the roof" is that
at the end of a workout, it sometimes happens that my HR stays at
the 140-150 rate for quite a while, even if I slow way down.


I stand corrected. Thanks for clarifying.

Greg also talked about a "13 MET", which I'm inferring to be like the
Borg rating of perceived exertion (scaled from 6 to 20, as most other
ratings go from 1-10), which, because it's a subjective scale, may not
measure fatigue but only how hard he's worked.


No, a MET has nothing to do with subjectivity. A MET is the oxygen
uptake of 3.5 ml per kilogram per minutes. 13 METs means you are
burning .0169 * 13 kcal per minute per kilogram, and corresponds
roughly to running 8 minute miles (although I am doing heavyhands
walking rather than running). A useful web site that explains
about this is
http://members.aol.com/BearFlag45/Biology1A/Reviews/energy.html.


Hmm...it appears that MET is another unit-scale measurement of VO2
(ml/kg/min). A 13 MET seems to correspond to VO2 = 45.5 ml/min/kg, which
according to my Polar table is the VO2 _max_ for a 25-yo male of average
fitness (although about 80% VO2max for one of "very good" fitness). It
seems high for an 8-minute mile. How were you able to measure yours?

Van

P.S. Have you tried out the glucose-water mixture yet?
How did it turn out?

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
  #47  
Old October 2nd 03, 08:43 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default heart rate vs blood sugar

Van Bagnol wrote (Thu, 02 Oct 2003 17:22:32 GMT):
Hmm...it appears that MET is another unit-scale measurement of VO2
(ml/kg/min). A 13 MET seems to correspond to VO2 = 45.5 ml/min/kg, which
according to my Polar table is the VO2 _max_ for a 25-yo male of average
fitness (although about 80% VO2max for one of "very good" fitness). It
seems high for an 8-minute mile. How were you able to measure yours?


OK, this is explained in the Heavyhands book, which is probably
long out of print. It depends on the relationship between HR and
O2 uptake being close to linear in the 120-150 heart-rate range.
What you do is one of a set of standard exercises (of known MET
value) for 5 minutes and measure the stable HR at that point (choose
exercises that put you in the 120-150 range). Then you use this
and simple algebra to determine the MET value of any exercise for
which you know your stable heartrate after 5 minutes.

The standard exercises in the book were calibrated in the lab where
they actually measured oxygen use (there are pictures of the book's
author wearing the apparatus), and they involve several of the
heavyhands exercises along with tempo, handweight, and size of
movement.

So, what I do is to choose a couple of these exercises and every
few weeks, "calibrate" myself by doing each a few five-minute
intervals and taking an average. Then I establish a goal for my
workouts in terms of METs & time, and keep myself on track by
monitoring my HR.

The HR effect of this thread came to my attention when I did calibration
runs toward the beginning and also toward the end of a workout, and
found the higher HR the second time.

The "8-minute mile" = 13 MET correspondence came from the "BearFlag45"
web page I cited in an earlier post.

BTW, the correspondence between MET and HR *changes* depending on
fitness--as you become more fit, you can do more METs and still
keep your HR fairly low. For me, 13 METs puts my HR around 140,
plus or minus depending on when in the work-out I am. I'm 55 years
old, so my "official" max HR using the simplest guideline is 220-55
= 165, and 140 is about 85% of that, so based on the standard
guidelines, that would be a moderately intense work-out for someone
my age. However, my actual HR ranges around quite a bit, and during
some intervals, may exceed 165 (although when I notice this, I
always slow down for a while).

P.S. Have you tried out the glucose-water mixture yet?


No, not yet.

Greg
  #48  
Old October 3rd 03, 08:20 AM
Van Bagnol
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default heart rate vs blood sugar

In article ,
wrote:

OK, this is explained in the Heavyhands book, which is probably
long out of print. It depends on the relationship between HR and
O2 uptake being close to linear in the 120-150 heart-rate range.
What you do is one of a set of standard exercises (of known MET
value) for 5 minutes and measure the stable HR at that point (choose
exercises that put you in the 120-150 range). Then you use this
and simple algebra to determine the MET value of any exercise for
which you know your stable heartrate after 5 minutes.

[...]
So, what I do is to choose a couple of these exercises and every
few weeks, "calibrate" myself by doing each a few five-minute
intervals and taking an average. Then I establish a goal for my
workouts in terms of METs & time, and keep myself on track by
monitoring my HR.

The HR effect of this thread came to my attention when I did calibration
runs toward the beginning and also toward the end of a workout, and
found the higher HR the second time.


When I get my HRM battery replaced, I'll try a similar experiment while
bicycling along a standard route at a known pace. I can alter diet to
start either from a 12-hour fast (morning before breakfast) or with
glucose-enrichment (measured dose of Gatorade/Propel/juice). I'm curious
to see what change there is in HR.

BTW, the correspondence between MET and HR *changes* depending on
fitness--as you become more fit, you can do more METs and still
keep your HR fairly low.


I would expect it to. I'd also expect your resting HR to decline as well.

For me, 13 METs puts my HR around 140, plus or minus depending on
when in the work-out I am. I'm 55 years old, so my "official" max HR
using the simplest guideline is 220-55 = 165, and 140 is about 85% of
that, so based on the standard guidelines, that would be a moderately
intense work-out for someone my age. However, my actual HR ranges
around quite a bit, and during some intervals, may exceed 165
(although when I notice this, I always slow down for a while).


If your MD okays it, I'd recommend you determine your true max HR. I
suspect it's higher than the formula predicts. The "220 minus age"
formula is horribly general, as an individual's HRmax can differ by
12bpm or more from the formula. (10-12 bpm is the standard deviation;
calculate the % of the population that falls _outside_ +/- 10 bpm and
you'll find it's sizeable.)

I thought my HRmax was 177 (according to formula) until I discovered it
at 182 while pedaling up a hill towing my daughter on a trail-a-bike and
I was still able to speak between breaths. Later I tried to push my HR
on a 15+% grade hill and got it to 192; until then I thought 150 bpm was
high, but since then I've frequently exceeded 180 on climbs. BTW, you
have to be _really_ motivated to attain your HRmax, as it can be quite
unpleasant.

Van

--
Van Bagnol / v a n at wco dot com / c r l at bagnol dot com
....enjoys - Theatre / Windsurfing / Skydiving / Mountain Biking
....feels - "Parang lumalakad ako sa loob ng paniginip"
....thinks - "An Error is Not a Mistake ... Unless You Refuse to Correct It"
  #49  
Old October 11th 11, 10:47 AM
Ammyidm Ammyidm is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by FitnessBanter: Oct 2011
Posts: 1
Default

Pioglitazone Hydrochloride can help to control high blood sugar levels in people with type 2 diabetes and combined with healthy diet and regular exercise.
Generic for Actos drug works by regulating the insulin function in your body.
  #50  
Old September 13th 12, 05:50 AM
markboucher markboucher is offline
Banned
 
First recorded activity by FitnessBanter: Sep 2012
Posts: 10
Default

According to the report, I have been working with active heart rate and records oxygen level. During the working out phase, the rate goes up.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Heart Rate During Cardio Shaun Brown Aerobic 8 September 24th 03 04:45 PM
heart rate recovery Jack Aerobic 3 July 10th 03 05:44 PM
Heart Rates: Am I doing myself harm? daisho Aerobic 2 July 7th 03 09:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FitnessBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.