Maximum heart rate question
Options
Replies
-
Allan I see what you're saying, but I don't think it applies to the types of workouts I'm doing. I don't stop for a break once in a 35 minute session. I do intense exercise where I get up to 170bpm or more and then done another slightly less intense exercise where it drops to 155 or 160 and then something more intense and so on but there are no rest periods at all and I'm constantly moving. During the whole workout my HR never goes below 145 and in the cool down/stretching part it might start to come down to 135 but that's only in the last 2-3 minutes.0
-
Allan I see what you're saying, but I don't think it applies to the types of workouts I'm doing. I don't stop for a break once in a 35 minute session. I do intense exercise where I get up to 170bpm or more and then done another slightly less intense exercise where it drops to 155 or 160 and then something more intense and so on but there are no rest periods at all and I'm constantly moving. During the whole workout my HR never goes below 145 and in the cool down/stretching part it might start to come down to 135 but that's only in the last 2-3 minutes.
Then what you’re doing is standard interval training. It has it’s place, particularly if you’re training for maximum cardiovascular health (VO2 Max).
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Bumping for interest. I've seen a couple HIIT explanations, but this is the first I'm seeing that the peak HR should be 95-110% of max. I've been seeing 80-90% of max for peak and 50-60% for rest. I was going to post a thread today on this very topic because my peak HR seems to be a decent bit higher than what I projected at 80-90%.
@AllanMisner, do you have a source for those numbers?
The only effort rating I’ve seen published is 95% of VO2Max, but since that is hard to measure, I’ve adopted the max heart rate. Based on my experience with HIIT, a 95% - 110% of calculated max is about as intense as someone can maintain for 20 - 60 seconds. The “can I call 911” seems about right for perception based measurement. The point is all out, not holding back anything for the future rounds.tincanonastring wrote: »Also, based on your statement of eating back exercise calories (which I do), how do you calculate the calorie loss from HIIT?
Since calories are all estimates, I’ll just plug in a best guess. For an eight round, 30-90 second, session with five minute warm up and five minute cool down (roughly 30 minutes), I’ll estimate 250 calories. But then, I’m a 220 lb man at 20% bf, so everyone will be a little different and should tweak calorie estimates to fit themselves.
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't Tabata describe a maximum benefit with a ratio of peak:rest at 2:1, and I've seen others at 3:1, but I'd need to look at those sources. Your ratio looks reversed. Do you think that gives the same benefit?
That type of estimation is basically what I'm doing with the calorie burns. I'm a little lighter than you with a higher BF, but I've been estimating around that myself because I think my total time is a little longer. I've been working myself up to longer peak times and have settled on around 30 seconds at peak. I'm currently trying to reduce the duration of my rest times.
Well what benefits are we talking? His ratio would technically bring you to be more intense during your work rounds with longer rest periods.
I know when I used to do like 30 sec: 30 sec on jump rope that I was able to keep going at almost the same intensity as round one.
Greater increase in VO2Max, increased RMR...there are other metabolic and aerobic benefits I've seen mentioned, but I'd have to look them up.
ETA: At the end of the day, I'd like to use HIIT as my primary means of cardio, a replacement for most of my long, steady-state sessions, but that only works if you're getting the same health benefits over the shorter exercise duration.0 -
Interesting. I'm learning a lot from this thread. I don't have a HRM and don't track it, but recently I used a new elliptical at the gym and it monitors your heart rate by holding onto the moving handles. Seems to me those numbers are as inaccurate as the calorie burns, though. Is that the case? Does anyone know after using a HRM and comparing that read-out to the screen? Just curious, really.
I mainly do interval training, so my heart rate varies during the workout. I've noticed that it rises very quickly but I have a hard time lowering it. Anyway, I'll keep checking this thread for updates. Thanks for all the information posted already!0 -
Interesting. I'm learning a lot from this thread. I don't have a HRM and don't track it, but recently I used a new elliptical at the gym and it monitors your heart rate by holding onto the moving handles. Seems to me those numbers are as inaccurate as the calorie burns, though. Is that the case? Does anyone know after using a HRM and comparing that read-out to the screen? Just curious, really.
I mainly do interval training, so my heart rate varies during the workout. I've noticed that it rises very quickly but I have a hard time lowering it. Anyway, I'll keep checking this thread for updates. Thanks for all the information posted already!
Most cardio machines (elliptical, treadmill, etc.) are estimating calorie burn based on pace and weight (if you input it, otherwise it is using a generic weight). I have yet to see one that adjusts calorie burn based on the heart rate recordings (plus not everyone holds the heart rate for the entire session).
0 -
Talking about steady state cardio and calorie burns I don't really understand why burns could be inaccurate if you are not doing this as surely the higher your heart rate the more calories you are burning, and if your HR comes down during interval training then you are not usually standing there doing nothing like in weight training workouts, but doing a cardio interval between either body weight or other exercises using weights..
Heart rate is used as a proxy for calorie expenditure. The research demonstrates that the behaviour as a proxy is relatively consistent when doing steady state work in the aerobic range. The software is designed based on that assumption.
Where one is training in a region that ther elationship isn't valid; too low, too high, not steady state, then the figure that the HRM displays can't be considered as reliable.
Not really relevant as you're not eating back the calorie expended anyway, so it's all a bit of hocum.
0 -
95% - 110% of LTHR (lactate threshold heart rate) has been a stable since I started amateur bicycle racing in late 80's and define the parameters of HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) where you are stimulating improved physiological response in an anaerobic state. It's very hard training and most people get nowhere near the intensity necessary if you are following a DVD (and such). At best, most of the hype get you in the Steady State/Tempo training range.
Go to 11/26/2009 post for a quick guide on setting zones http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009_11_01_archive.html.
AND good luck on getting a read from HRM when your are doing HIIT; the interval is typically over before HR catches up due to the lag. To analyze the training, you need a continuous recorder and do it after the fact.
Here some other interesting reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-interval-training-introduction.html/
Some terms should not be usurped to "dumb" things down and HIIT is one of them.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »Bumping for interest. I've seen a couple HIIT explanations, but this is the first I'm seeing that the peak HR should be 95-110% of max. I've been seeing 80-90% of max for peak and 50-60% for rest. I was going to post a thread today on this very topic because my peak HR seems to be a decent bit higher than what I projected at 80-90%.
@AllanMisner, do you have a source for those numbers?
The only effort rating I’ve seen published is 95% of VO2Max, but since that is hard to measure, I’ve adopted the max heart rate. Based on my experience with HIIT, a 95% - 110% of calculated max is about as intense as someone can maintain for 20 - 60 seconds. The “can I call 911” seems about right for perception based measurement. The point is all out, not holding back anything for the future rounds.tincanonastring wrote: »Also, based on your statement of eating back exercise calories (which I do), how do you calculate the calorie loss from HIIT?
Since calories are all estimates, I’ll just plug in a best guess. For an eight round, 30-90 second, session with five minute warm up and five minute cool down (roughly 30 minutes), I’ll estimate 250 calories. But then, I’m a 220 lb man at 20% bf, so everyone will be a little different and should tweak calorie estimates to fit themselves.
Makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. Doesn't Tabata describe a maximum benefit with a ratio of peak:rest at 2:1, and I've seen others at 3:1, but I'd need to look at those sources. Your ratio looks reversed. Do you think that gives the same benefit?
That type of estimation is basically what I'm doing with the calorie burns. I'm a little lighter than you with a higher BF, but I've been estimating around that myself because I think my total time is a little longer. I've been working myself up to longer peak times and have settled on around 30 seconds at peak. I'm currently trying to reduce the duration of my rest times.
Well what benefits are we talking? His ratio would technically bring you to be more intense during your work rounds with longer rest periods.
I know when I used to do like 30 sec: 30 sec on jump rope that I was able to keep going at almost the same intensity as round one.
Greater increase in VO2Max, increased RMR...there are other metabolic and aerobic benefits I've seen mentioned, but I'd have to look them up.
ETA: At the end of the day, I'd like to use HIIT as my primary means of cardio, a replacement for most of my long, steady-state sessions, but that only works if you're getting the same health benefits over the shorter exercise duration.
I know about slow steady cardio. My pic one was with 6 hours weekly of cardio on the elliptical. Of course I build up to that. I think i started at 3 hours weekly cardio. If only I have a good eating lifestyle pic 2 would of never happen. Oh well we learn. I might get a hour of cardio in a week.
When new people see my tabata jump rope workout, at the gym, they usually ask if I'm training to become a boxer. The end goal that might never happen is to be able to jump rope close to Floyd Mayweather Jr. speed. That man is quick.0 -
95% - 110% of LTHR (lactate threshold heart rate) has been a stable since I started amateur bicycle racing in late 80's and define the parameters of HIIT (High Intensity Interval Training) where you are stimulating improved physiological response in an anaerobic state. It's very hard training and most people get nowhere near the intensity necessary if you are following a DVD (and such). At best, most of the hype get you in the Steady State/Tempo training range.
Go to 11/26/2009 post for a quick guide on setting zones http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2009_11_01_archive.html.
AND good luck on getting a read from HRM when your are doing HIIT; the interval is typically over before HR catches up due to the lag. To analyze the training, you need a continuous recorder and do it after the fact.
Here some other interesting reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_interval_training
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/steady-state-versus-interval-training-introduction.html/
Some terms should not be usurped to "dumb" things down and HIIT is one of them.
This is my biggest problem. I nearly ran into a stop sign the other day during a sprint while trying to check my stupid watch.
Lactate threshold heart rate is different from max heart rate, so I don't think you can apply it to the 95%-110% statement. Beyond that, though, one of your sources references HIIT programs at various peak percentages below the 95% mark, so I don't think you can say that one specific measurement "define the parameters of HIIT."
I don't think anyone in here, besides maybe the OP, was misusing the term. I'm still learning about it myself, so perhaps I'm wrong, but that's not the impression I got from anyone.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »The general guideline for maximum heart rate is 220 - your age. For light cardio, you should be at 60 - 70%, for intense cardio, you should be at 75 - 90%
What you were doing with resistance is actually a circuit training (they are misusing the name HIIT). True HIIT has you going full out for 20 - 30 seconds and then having a recovery period of 60 - 120 seconds. In that, you’ll run your heart rate up into the 95 - 110% range for that work period, and during recovery, you’re trying to get your heart rate back down to around 50 - 60%. If you’re doing this right, you’ll only be able to do this 5 - 10 cycles (I usually tap out at 8 rounds).
All of that said, I am not a fan of burning calories for the sake of losing weight. Fat loss comes from what and how much you eat. If you’re eating at a small deficit, you’ll lose weight slowly and steadily (the healthy way). Exercise should be done to improve other aspects of health (strength, endurance, muscle mass gain/retention, cardiovascular, mobility, balance, speed, agility, etc.). And then you eat back those workout calories to fuel the next workout.
Patience and persistence are the keys to success in fat loss and health improvement.
May have missed it earlier, but how can your heart rate ever get to 110% of max since the true max would be, by definition, the highest possible?
I agree, the 220-age is just a broad formula and everyone is different. I did a MHR test at a university and got up to 192 at age 53 when in per the formula my max should have been 167.
I just read back a bit and saw you mentioned the 110% of calculated max. In my case I could buy that. Based on my numbers above 110% of calculated max would be 184 or 96% of actual max. The math works in my case, but I'm not sure if it would in situations were the tested max was closer to the calculated max.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »The general guideline for maximum heart rate is 220 - your age. For light cardio, you should be at 60 - 70%, for intense cardio, you should be at 75 - 90%
What you were doing with resistance is actually a circuit training (they are misusing the name HIIT). True HIIT has you going full out for 20 - 30 seconds and then having a recovery period of 60 - 120 seconds. In that, you’ll run your heart rate up into the 95 - 110% range for that work period, and during recovery, you’re trying to get your heart rate back down to around 50 - 60%. If you’re doing this right, you’ll only be able to do this 5 - 10 cycles (I usually tap out at 8 rounds).
All of that said, I am not a fan of burning calories for the sake of losing weight. Fat loss comes from what and how much you eat. If you’re eating at a small deficit, you’ll lose weight slowly and steadily (the healthy way). Exercise should be done to improve other aspects of health (strength, endurance, muscle mass gain/retention, cardiovascular, mobility, balance, speed, agility, etc.). And then you eat back those workout calories to fuel the next workout.
Patience and persistence are the keys to success in fat loss and health improvement.
May have missed it earlier, but how can your heart rate ever get to 110% of max since the true max would be, by definition, the highest possible?
I agree, the 220-age is just a broad formula and everyone is different. I did a MHR test at a university and got up to 192 at age 53 when in per the formula my max should have been 167.
Because the formula is based on an average expected highest safe rate. Everyone can go over their calculated HRM, it just isn’t advisable to be there long or often.
And yes, the calculated rate isn’t fully applicable to everyone, but does serve as a better guideline than relying only on perception. Most studies that look at how accurately people rate perceived exertion find that people typically over-estimate their level of effort.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »Interesting. I'm learning a lot from this thread. I don't have a HRM and don't track it, but recently I used a new elliptical at the gym and it monitors your heart rate by holding onto the moving handles. Seems to me those numbers are as inaccurate as the calorie burns, though. Is that the case? Does anyone know after using a HRM and comparing that read-out to the screen? Just curious, really.
I mainly do interval training, so my heart rate varies during the workout. I've noticed that it rises very quickly but I have a hard time lowering it. Anyway, I'll keep checking this thread for updates. Thanks for all the information posted already!
Most cardio machines (elliptical, treadmill, etc.) are estimating calorie burn based on pace and weight (if you input it, otherwise it is using a generic weight). I have yet to see one that adjusts calorie burn based on the heart rate recordings (plus not everyone holds the heart rate for the entire session).
Thank you. I probably worded it wrong, but calorie burn wasn't my concern. I'm wondering if the HRM on the machines (in this case, an elliptical where I hold the handles that monitor heart rate) are accurate or if they are as inaccurate as calorie burns?0 -
Having worn a HRM and held the handles on machines, they’re always about the same although the strap style HRM seems to be more sensitive to changes.0
-
Some interesting reading. To answer an earlier post, the main reason I want to know if the calorie burns are accurate is not to eat the calories back but to burn as much as I can to help with weight loss. This is because my weight loss is very slow, despite the fact I'm counting calories, eating at a deficit which should be large enough for me to lose at least 0.5lbs a week without exercise but it's not happening every week.
Regarding my original question, my main concern was not how high my HR could get, but if it was safe to exercise with my HR regularly reaching 170 or 180 BPM plus.0 -
AllanMisner wrote: »Having worn a HRM and held the handles on machines, they’re always about the same although the strap style HRM seems to be more sensitive to changes.
Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to respond.0 -
Regarding my original question, my main concern was not how high my HR could get, but if it was safe to exercise with my HR regularly reaching 170 or 180 BPM plus.
In the absence of lab testing to determine your maximum heart rate, VO2 Max and actate threshold it's all moot anyway. You have no idea how that range compares to your maximum.
For your objectives, RPE is perfectly acceptable. You probably don't really have any benefit from the HRM.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »The general guideline for maximum heart rate is 220 - your age. For light cardio, you should be at 60 - 70%, for intense cardio, you should be at 75 - 90%
What you were doing with resistance is actually a circuit training (they are misusing the name HIIT). True HIIT has you going full out for 20 - 30 seconds and then having a recovery period of 60 - 120 seconds. In that, you’ll run your heart rate up into the 95 - 110% range for that work period, and during recovery, you’re trying to get your heart rate back down to around 50 - 60%. If you’re doing this right, you’ll only be able to do this 5 - 10 cycles (I usually tap out at 8 rounds).
All of that said, I am not a fan of burning calories for the sake of losing weight. Fat loss comes from what and how much you eat. If you’re eating at a small deficit, you’ll lose weight slowly and steadily (the healthy way). Exercise should be done to improve other aspects of health (strength, endurance, muscle mass gain/retention, cardiovascular, mobility, balance, speed, agility, etc.). And then you eat back those workout calories to fuel the next workout.
Patience and persistence are the keys to success in fat loss and health improvement.
This equation would give me a maximum HR of 155 at 90%, that's the first time I've seen the second part of the 95-110% for HIIT and I'm glad to see it as I frequently go over my max heart rate and just apply the 'can I speak lucidly' / 'do I want to die?' test ... I always wondered if I got that wrong
I call it the, "Can I still dial 9-1-1" test.
Bumping for interest. I've seen a couple HIIT explanations, but this is the first I'm seeing that the peak HR should be 95-110% of max. I've been seeing 80-90% of max for peak and 50-60% for rest. I was going to post a thread today on this very topic because my peak HR seems to be a decent bit higher than what I projected at 80-90%.
@AllanMisner, do you have a source for those numbers?
Also, based on your statement of eating back exercise calories (which I do), how do you calculate the calorie loss from HIIT?
I second on links for the above @AllanMisner. From what I read, 110% of your max heart rate is a very dangerous thing to workout in.
It would be, if the equation he was using meant anything, but it doesn't due to variance.
The 220-Age equation has huge variance in real populations and can be off be 10-15 bpm. Others have highlighted other possible equations in this thread. They are a little better but still just guesstimates. (With errors of 7-10 beats, making 110% meaningless).
Do a lab stress test or carry out one of the "self test protocols" published on the web (and have 911 no speed dial).
Personally, my maxHR tested is 184, calculations would put it at 172 or 176.
What Evgeni says about individual variance 10-15 beats in either direction is normal, said my fulltime cycling coach. I would add that you don't know YOUR max pulse unless you test it. In addition max pulse is SPORT SPECIFIC. Which means that your max output is higher in running than cycling etc. I'm 44 yo, my running max was 209 last time I checked, cycling was 183 a couple of years ago when I did the stress test.
If you don't take a pulse test, the HR belt only gives you the HR, the estimated calorie burns is almost like playing black jack...
Edit: The above mentioned cycling coach also informed me about how HR can vary: how your day is, caffeine intake, emotional state, if overtrained it's VERY hard to get to anaerobic level <93%, not eating enough bla,bla,bla. So don't take HR too literally. It's just a tool, an indicator.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »tedboosalis7 wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »The general guideline for maximum heart rate is 220 - your age. For light cardio, you should be at 60 - 70%, for intense cardio, you should be at 75 - 90%
What you were doing with resistance is actually a circuit training (they are misusing the name HIIT). True HIIT has you going full out for 20 - 30 seconds and then having a recovery period of 60 - 120 seconds. In that, you’ll run your heart rate up into the 95 - 110% range for that work period, and during recovery, you’re trying to get your heart rate back down to around 50 - 60%. If you’re doing this right, you’ll only be able to do this 5 - 10 cycles (I usually tap out at 8 rounds).
All of that said, I am not a fan of burning calories for the sake of losing weight. Fat loss comes from what and how much you eat. If you’re eating at a small deficit, you’ll lose weight slowly and steadily (the healthy way). Exercise should be done to improve other aspects of health (strength, endurance, muscle mass gain/retention, cardiovascular, mobility, balance, speed, agility, etc.). And then you eat back those workout calories to fuel the next workout.
Patience and persistence are the keys to success in fat loss and health improvement.
This is fine if you are looking for a baseline. There's a newer formula called the Karvonen formula. I like applying that one over the old version.
Here's a good link to check it out:
http://www.acefitness.org/blog/3502/advances-in-aerobic-training-how-to-apply-the-new
Here's how I calculate mine outside of doing the VO2Max and metabolic test:
HRRMax = 208-(.7*age)
My age is 46 as of today, so the formula is applied here:
HRRMax = 208-(.7*46)
Result:
HRRMax (100%) = 175.8 ~176 rounded for sanity.
To get your training zones, then apply the HRRMax to the rest of the formula:
(HRRMax-HRRRest)*HRRT%+HRRRest
My resting HR is 50.
For example, this is how I would calculate all of my zones using this formula:
HRR60%: (176-50)*.6)+50 = ~125
HRR70%: (176-50)*.7)+50 = ~138
HRR80%: (176-50)*.8)+50 = ~151
HRR90%: (176-50)*.9)+50 = ~163
When I did my VO2Max test - my zones were about 5 beats lower per zone.
Hope this helps!
This is the most recent information I've seen, and it's what I've been using lately, but I didn't know the name of the formula.
I'm 35 (close enough, anyway) with a resting heart rate of about 65 (been a while since I checked).
MAX = 208-(.7*35) = 183.5 rounded to 184.
(Max-Rest)*%+Rest
60% = (184-65)*.6+65= 136
70% = (184-65)*.7+65= 148
80% = (184-65)*.8+65= 160
90% = (184-65)*.9+65= 172
My peaks frequently exceed the 172 mark, and I've been worried that I've been over-exerting myself.
I'll be speaking to my PCP about this next month at my annual physical, but my exercise HR seems to be higher than I expected. When I do my steady-state runs, I'm often around 165 for the duration, which aligns closer to high intensity based on those calculations.
Is anyone aware of any literature on how this might vary from one individual to the next?
All HR Max equations have a SEE of 10-12 beats/min. If you think of a bell curve distribution (and who doesn't), that means it's not that unusual to have an actual HR Max 15-20 beats above the calculated number (or even higher). Obviously, if HR Max is higher, all calculated "zone" numbers will be higher as well.
0 -
Thanks Foamroller. So how would I go about testing my max pulse just out of curiosity? I know the HRM is not 100% but I use that along with my Fitbit as tools to ensure I'm working as hard as I should be when doing certain activities, for example when on the cardio machines at the gym if I only get up to 120 bpm I know I'm not doing enough, the same when I go out for a walk, it makes me want to walk faster etc. My Fitbit is great for encouraging me to move more in general, not only during workouts, so most days I feel more motivated to go out for a walk or even just do more around the house because my step count for the day is low.0
-
Thanks Foamroller. So how would I go about testing my max pulse just out of curiosity? I know the HRM is not 100% but I use that along with my Fitbit as tools to ensure I'm working as hard as I should be when doing certain activities, for example when on the cardio machines at the gym if I only get up to 120 bpm I know I'm not doing enough, the same when I go out for a walk, it makes me want to walk faster etc. My Fitbit is great for encouraging me to move more in general, not only during workouts, so most days I feel more motivated to go out for a walk or even just do more around the house because my step count for the day is low.
Why would you think that 120 isn’t enough?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions