
Editorial |
Gaza and Core American Values

Viewpoint |
Heart rate zones aren’t a perfect measure of exercise intensity
by Jason Sawyer, Bryant University
Aerobic exercise like jogging, biking, swimming or hiking is a fundamental way to maintain cardiovascular and overall health. The intensity of aerobic exercise is important to determine how much time you should spend training in order to reap its benefits.
As an exercise science researcher, I support the American College of Sports Medicine’s recommendation of a minimum of 150 minutes per week of moderate aerobic exercise, or 75 minutes per week of high-intensity exercise. But what does exercise intensity mean?
There is a linear relationship between heart rate and exercise intensity, meaning as the exercise intensity increases, so does heart rate. Heart rate zone training, which uses heart rate as a measure of exercise intensity, has increased in popularity in recent years, partially due to the ubiquity of wearable heart rate technology.
The way exercise intensity is usually described is problematic because one person’s “vigorous” may be another’s “moderate.” Heart rate zone training tries to provide an objective measure of intensity by breaking it down into various zones. But heart rate can also be influenced by temperature, medications and stress levels, which may affect readings during exercise.
The gold standard for determining aerobic exercise intensity is to measure the amount of oxygen consumed and carbon dioxide exhaled. However, this method is cumbersome because it requires people to wear a breathing mask to capture respiratory gases.
An easier way is to predict the person’s maximum heart rate. This can be done with an equation that subtracts the person’s age from 220. Although there is controversy surrounding the best way to calculate maximum heart rate, researchers suggest this method is still valid.
The American College of Sports Medicine outlines five heart rate zones based on a person’s predicted heart rate maximum. Zone 1, or very light intensity, equals less than 57% of maximum heart rate; zone 2, or light intensity, is 57% to 63%; zone 3, or moderate intensity, is 64% to 76%; zone 4, or vigorous intensity, is 77% to 95%; and zone 5, or near-maximal intensity, is 96% to 100%.
However, other organizations have their own measures of exercise intensity, with varying ranges and descriptions. For example, Orange Theory describes their zone 2 training as 61% to 70% of maximum heart rate. Complicating matters even further, companies that produce heart rate monitors also have higher thresholds for each zone. For example, Polar’s zone 2 is up to 70% of maximum heart rate, while the American College of Sports Medicine recommends a zone 2 of up to 63%.
Zone training is based on the idea that how the body responds to exercise is at least in part determined by exercise intensity. These adaptations include increased oxygen consumption, important cellular adaptations and improved exercise performance.
Zone 2 has received a lot of attention from the fitness community because of its possible benefits. Performance coaches describe zone 2 as “light cardio,” where the intensity is low and the body relies mainly on fat to meet energy demands. Fats provide more energy compared to carbohydrates, but deliver it to cells more slowly.
Because fat is more abundant than carbohydrates in the body, the body responds to the cellular stress that exercise causes in muscle cells by increasing the number of mitochondria, or the energy-producing component of cells. By increasing the number of mitochondria, the body may become better at burning fat.
On the other end of the spectrum of exercise intensity is high-intensity interval training, or HIIT. These workouts involve exercising at a high intensity for short durations, like an all-out sprint or cycle for 30 seconds to a minute, followed by a period of low intensity activity. This is repeated six to 10 times.
During this sort of high-intensity activity, the body primarily uses carbohydrates as a fuel source. During high-intensity exercise, the body preferentially uses carbohydrates because the energy demand is high and carbohydrates provide energy twice as fast as fats.
Some people who turn to exercise to lose fat may eschew high-intensity training for zone 2, as it’s considered the “the fat burning zone.” This may be a misnomer.
Researchers have found that high-intensity interval training produces a similar increase in markers for mitochondria production when compared to longer, moderate aerobic training. Studies have also shown that high-intensity exercisers build muscle and improve insulin resistance and cardiovascular health similar to moderate-intensity exercisers, and they made these gains faster. The main trade-off was discomfort during bouts of high-intensity exercise.
With varying guidelines around heart rate zones and conflicting evidence on the potential benefits of training in each zone, exercisers may be left wondering what to do.
In order to yield the health benefits of exercise, the most important variable to consider is adhering to an exercise routine, regardless of intensity. Because the body adapts in similar ways to moderate- and high-intensity exercise, people can choose which intensity they like best or dislike the least.

Notice that the American College of Sports Medicine’s recommendation for exercise falls under moderate intensity. This is equivalent to zone 3, or 64% to 76% of maximum heart rate, a range you can only meet in the upper levels of most zone 2 workouts. If you’re not seeing desired results with your zone 2 workouts, try increasing your intensity to reach the moderate level.
A commonly reported reason for not exercising is a lack of time. For people short on time, high-intensity training is a good alternative to steady-state cardiovascular exercise. For people who find exercising at such a high intensity uncomfortable, they can get the same benefit by doing moderate-intensity exercise for a longer period.
Jason Sawyer is an Associate Professor of Exercise and Movement Science at Bryant University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Viewpoint |
What are microcredentials? And are they worth having?

As private firms and governments struggle to fill jobs – and with the cost of college too high for many students – employers and elected officials are searching for alternative ways for people to get good jobs without having to earn a traditional college degree.
Microcredentials are one such alternative. But just what are microcredentials? And do they lead to better jobs and higher earnings?
As a sociologist who has examined the research on microcredentials, the best available answer right now is: It depends on what a person is studying.
While there is no official definition of a microcredential, there are some broadly accepted components. Like traditional degrees, microcredentials certify peoples’ skills and knowledge, ranging in scope from software skills like Microsoft Excel to broad abilities like project management.
Microcredentials typically indicate “competencies” – that is, things people can do. They are represented by digital badges, which are emblems that can be shared online. Just as a diploma verifies a degree-holder’s achievement, badges verify microcredentials. An employer can click on the digital badge to see who awarded it, when it was awarded and what it represents.
Microcredentials also allow people to verify what they already know, such as a person who is an experienced Python coder, or what they acquire through short-term learning and assessments. An experienced coder in the Python programming language could take an assessment and earn a microcredential, as could a novice after completing a programming course. Either way, microcredentials “allow an individual to show mastery in a certain area.”
What usually distinguishes microcredentials from other short-term learning, like nondegree certificates, is duration. Certificates typically take longer. The other difference is location: Microcredentials are typically completed online.
Data from Credential Engine, a nonprofit organization that catalogs education and training credentials, and Class Central, a searchable index of online courses, indicate that business, IT and programming, and health care are popular focus areas for microcredentials.
Many colleges and universities, such as SUNY, Oregon State and Harvard, offer microcredentials. But they are also offered through social media companies like LinkedIn Learning and private providers like EdX and Coursera. Professional organizations like the National Education Association also award microcredentials.
Some microcredentials directly prepare learners to become industry certified – like SkillStorm’s CompTIA A+ certification, an eight-week online course that prepares learners to work in IT support and help desk roles. Others focus on general employability skills – like Binghamton University’s course in career readiness, which helps learners develop their resume, cover letter and LinkedIn profile. It also provides a mock interview opportunity. Some microcredentials are “stackable” – meaning that they indicate related skills. Someone pursuing a health care career, for example, might earn stackable microcredentials in clinical medical assisting, phlebotomy and as a electrocardiogram – or EKG – technician.
Some microcredential programs are credit-bearing and may serve as entry points to degree or certificate programs.
Because of the short duration of microcredential programs, most are not regulated by Title IV of the U.S. Higher Education Act and are not typically eligible for federal financial aid, which only covers programs lasting 15 weeks or longer.
If Congress passes the Bipartisan Workforce Pell Act, some microcredentials – those that last eight weeks or more – could become eligible for financial aid. But until there is a final bill, it is unclear whether and how legislation would impact learners pursuing microcredentials. The bill was set to be considered on Feb. 28, 2024, but that vote has been postponed.

Our survey showed that the vast majority – over 90% – were over 25 years old and that most – over 65% – had prior college experience, including many who had earned degrees or certificates.
The majority of surveyed students indicated that their programs were either free or employer-sponsored. About a fourth said they wanted to get out of low-wage jobs or advance in their current jobs. Between 35% and 50% said they wanted to explore a career change.
Many noncredit programs at community colleges are offered partially or fully in-person, while microcredentials are more typically earned online. While online programs may be convenient, they are also known for high withdrawal rates. Nondegree programs of study also have very low completion rates.
Credentials in traditionally male-dominated fields, such as IT and construction specialties, yielded substantial benefits – lower unemployment rates and far higher wages. Credentials in female-dominated fields, such as education and administrative support, yielded little to no benefit in terms of either employment rates or earnings. These findings come from a 2019 survey of adults without degrees.
The bottom line is that salaries can vary widely. For instance, people in fields such as IT cloud computing may see a pay boost of US$20,000, whereas people in office administration and certain education-related jobs may not see any salary increase. Credentials in these fields are less likely to be employer-sponsored.
Should you get a microcredential? The answer certainly depends on your current employment situation – including your employer’s willingness to sponsor training – and your career goals. While 95% of employers see benefits in their employees earning a microcredential, 46% are “unsure of the quality of education” represented by microcredentials, and 33% are unsure of their alignment with industry standards.
Given the lack of systematic evidence at this point, I believe their concerns are warranted. Federal and state regulation could lead to better data collection and more quality control for microcredentials.
Daniel Douglas, Lecturer in Sociology, Trinity College This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

More Sentinel Stories


Photo Galleries