Heart rate not getting high enough - need exercise suggestions
Replies
-
Interesting. Prior to reading that article, every doctor/medical/fitness professional I've heard said to check RHR first thing in the morning. Pretty much any other time, and you'll have additional stresses that will raise your heart rate.0
-
xsmilexforxmex wrote: »As your fitness level increases, it may also get more difficult to raise your heart rate with the same amount of exercise [exercise - not effort - increase effort, the rate should still go up, if it doesn't something is wrong] because the heart is more efficient (stronger) at pumping blood.
You're also looking at it from an equivalent energy stand point. Yes, as you become more fit, your RHR will decrease AND you can output the same energy at a lower HR. But, that veers from the point of the thread, which is when someone feels like they are the verge of collapsing on a treadmill and they have a HR of 90, something is inherently wrong. As you become more fit you can also output more energy and still have your HR increase to the same limit when you are not fit, you just out put more energy. Again, the OP is very unlikely to have a max HR of 90.
A bit off topic, but heart efficiency/strength/whatever you want to call it has some determination, but many argue that it doesn't change too much. More than likely you are training muscle fiber adaptation for how you are training the muscles, mitochondrial growth/regressions and capillary growth/regressions.0 -
If your resting heart rate is low (like it is, it's below 50) then your exercising heart rate won't be as high. That doesn't mean you're not working it out. The better shape a person is in, generally, the lower their resting heart rate will be. My dad's was always around 40 - 45 while he was in the military. It's higher now that he's retired. He ran or biked to and from work every day while working.
I personally disagree with the theory of the "fat burning zone" for heart rates. You burn fewer calories in that zone than the cardio zone above it so I feel like it's not as efficient. Just because the ratio of fat burnt is higher doesn't mean the over all amount of fat you're burning is higher.
ETA: I didn't read the post very well. Missed the part about max heart rate.0 -
I personally disagree with the theory of the "fat burning zone" for heart rates. You burn fewer calories in that zone than the cardio zone above it so I feel like it's not as efficient. Just because the ratio of fat burnt is higher doesn't mean the over all amount of fat you're burning is higher.
ETA: I didn't read the post very well. Missed the part about max heart rate.
From a weight loss perspective, yes you need to have an energy intake deficit to lose weight. From a "fat as a fuel perspective," the "Fat burning zone" is a real thing. From a calories/hr standpoint, working out in the "Fat burning zone" is less than working out above the fat burning zone. From a "do more everyday" perspective, I probably burn more calories per week than most because I can train everyday AND at a higher intensity than a yoga class or lifting weights. You can't just look at it on a workout or even a daily basis.
1 -
I personally disagree with the theory of the "fat burning zone" for heart rates.
"Fat burning zone" has nothing to do with weight loss. It's a pacing tool for endurance athletes. You can't run a marathon at 90 % mHR because you'll run out of energy and hit the wall. But you can run a marathon at 65 % mHR because fat is a sustainable source of energy.1 -
xsmilexforxmex wrote: »xsmilexforxmex wrote: »singletrackmtbr wrote: »xsmilexforxmex wrote: »
Resting heart rate of 48? That's really low. Normal HR is 60-100, some people are outliers but it's usually athletes in great shape (or little old ladies/people with heart issues) who have a much lower HR... If this is the truly the case - your HR will not go up as much as considered normal, since you're already well below normal.
No!
No what exactly?
RHR at 48 is not really low. It's pretty normal for someone that exercises regularly. Like others, mine is typically in the 40's - 47, last time I checked a couple of weeks ago. "Normal" HR, what you mentioned, is different than RHR.
Actually - a normal resting heart rate is the 60-100 - http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/expert-answers/heart-rate/faq-20057979 is just one source that will tell you that.
However things like fitness level can change that - so you're not entirely wrong, but it's not different. Bradycardia can be caused by a number of things but it's not uncommon for a low RHR to occur in people who work out regularly. As your fitness level increases, it may also get more difficult to raise your heart rate with the same amount of exercise [exercise - not effort - increase effort, the rate should still go up, if it doesn't something is wrong] because the heart is more efficient (stronger) at pumping blood.
That being said, bradycardia can also be cause by a number of concerning medical issues, such as dysfunction of the vagus nerve, heart disease, head injury, and some medications. So someone who is not regularly exercising/running/fit may need to see their doctor if they have a RHR below normal to rule out a concerning cause, especially if any serious symptoms appear - such as dizziness, lightheadedness, chest pain, or shortness of breath.
I appreciate your effort here and technically you're right. However you're in a fitness forum and you're telling someone who trains they have an abnormally low RHR.
You don't have to be a top level athlete to have a RHR in the 50s or even 40s. As a cardiac ICU nurse for 16 years I can tell you that is perfectly normal for people who train regularly.
Also your statement that a low RHR means your HR will stay low during exercise is a loose correlation at best. Many athletes have a low RHR but high max HR.
Anecdotally my RHR is 48 and my max HR is 185, sometimes more (10+ bpm higher than my age projected HRmax).2 -
ronocnikral wrote: »xsmilexforxmex wrote: »As your fitness level increases, it may also get more difficult to raise your heart rate with the same amount of exercise [exercise - not effort - increase effort, the rate should still go up, if it doesn't something is wrong] because the heart is more efficient (stronger) at pumping blood.
You're also looking at it from an equivalent energy stand point. Yes, as you become more fit, your RHR will decrease AND you can output the same energy at a lower HR. But, that veers from the point of the thread, which is when someone feels like they are the verge of collapsing on a treadmill and they have a HR of 90, something is inherently wrong. As you become more fit you can also output more energy and still have your HR increase to the same limit when you are not fit, you just out put more energy. Again, the OP is very unlikely to have a max HR of 90.
A bit off topic, but heart efficiency/strength/whatever you want to call it has some determination, but many argue that it doesn't change too much. More than likely you are training muscle fiber adaptation for how you are training the muscles, mitochondrial growth/regressions and capillary growth/regressions.
I don't disagree - I wasn't trying to imply I think OP's max HR would be 90, but that if they're doing the same workouts at the same intensity they were before, since they follow videos, it's likely it would go down. I did miss the part about being exhausted further down- go me for not reading, through. That being said, they mentioned heart rate spiking into the 120's under periods of brief stress. That leads me to believe there's a fault with the HRM (most likely) or that there is in fact something seriously wrong, cardiologically speaking (hopefully not).0 -
If your resting HR is 48, shouldn't that range be good?0
-
singletrackmtbr wrote: »Also your statement that a low RHR means your HR will stay low during exercise is a loose correlation at best. Many athletes have a low RHR but high max HR.
Anecdotally my RHR is 48 and my max HR is 185, sometimes more (10+ bpm higher than my age projected HRmax).
I'd say no correlation at all.
A low RHR means decent cardiovascular fitness and good genes.
A high max HR means the same
And to pile it on like everyone else: last check up RHR 37. Max HR is 192. I'm not 28...
But, one this that is a direct correlation - how quickly HR recovers is directly related to fitness. If HR drops like a rock after completing exercise is a good indication of decent cardiovascular fitness0 -
I was in medication that suppressed my heart rate. I'm sorry I can't remember which, but it was a BP medication. I talked to me doctor, and she changed my medication.0
-
my RHR on a good day is in the mid 40s,on a not so good day mid 50/60s. Im in no way an athlete. I have had ultrasounds and ekgs and so on and my dr isnt worried because all is fine, even with my mvp/mvr which seems to have improved(even though most things say it can improve in its own). anyway.
I was told by my dr that as long as I have no other symptoms to not worry.I can get my heart rate up quickly though(just walking the dogs I can get it up over 100). The highest mine has ever been with exercise is like 172,but then it comes down at a moderate pace. I would manually check it like everyone else says to do.0 -
Treehugger_88 wrote: »Ok thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'm leaning towards thinking its my heart rate monitor. I've checked it when resting and walking and its been accurate, but haven't checked during the rest time during workout. I will try. If it is really inaccurate I'll try a chest strap. If its just that my heart rate is low I'll try a few other workouts. Its weird, my HRM will usually spike up to 120 when my alarm goes off in the morning, and a few times its spiked when I've been arguing with someone, like my boyfriend haha.
@TavistockToad I did insanity pure cardio on Tuesday morning and was sweating and exhausted but monitor only recorded 90 beats per minute.
@NorthCascades I live really really far north where its often -30 or below in winter (which is most of the year). On warmer days I do go cross-country skiing fast (skate-skiing) for a few hours where I really exert myself, drenched it sweat, and my wrist HRM maxes out at 90. Next time I'll check it against my neck pulse.
@zdyb23456 I'll try jump rope and plyometrics.
@singletrackmtbr Thanks I'll check that out.
Or jog up several flights of stairs. That should get your HR up.
0 -
If you're trying to lose 5lbs, increasing your heartrate isn't needed. Eating less than you burn is.
Now if this is for FITNESS, then there's likely something wrong with your HRM or your genetics for endurance and stamina are amazing.
I go with a new HRM first.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Thanks everyone!
@ninerbuff Yes for the 5 lbs, I realize that I need to focus on diet more than exercise. Its also for fitness though, as I feel great after a workout, less stressed, etc and want to be in the best shape possible with the resources I have. I want to maximize my workouts to get the most benefits, and was thinking if I can get optimize my heart rate for a sustained period of time, I'd be doing so.
Step one for me will be to check my heart rate during a few workouts to see if it is indeed my HRM that is wrong, which based on the feedback I'm getting here, is the most likely scenario.
I do have a somewhat low heart rate/blood pressure. I've had a few doctors ask if I am a marathon runner when they check my stats. And I'm relatively active, but definitely no marathon runner. So perhaps I'm a bit genetically lucky in that regard, but I'm pretty sure my heart rate will be above 90 when I'm really exerting myself. I'll start checking tomorrow...0 -
As others indicated, do a manual check on your HR and compare it to your monitor. When you are working out just count the beats for 10 or 15 sec and multiply accordingly.
Though it's cold, can't you still walk outside? Some fast walking can easily get your rate up. Also, is there anywhere indoors you can create a loop through some hallways and up/down some stairs.0 -
If your resting heart rate is low (like it is, it's below 50) then your exercising heart rate won't be as high. That doesn't mean you're not working it out. The better shape a person is in, generally, the lower their resting heart rate will be. My dad's was always around 40 - 45 while he was in the military. It's higher now that he's retired. He ran or biked to and from work every day while working.
I personally disagree with the theory of the "fat burning zone" for heart rates. You burn fewer calories in that zone than the cardio zone above it so I feel like it's not as efficient. Just because the ratio of fat burnt is higher doesn't mean the over all amount of fat you're burning is higher.
ETA: I didn't read the post very well. Missed the part about max heart rate.
The bolded is misleading - I suspect you know this, but others may misread it: HR max doesn't decrease with fitness.
Yes, as you get fitter, you get more efficient at a given exercise (the one you do, or similar ones), and possibly somewhat more efficient at others that you don't routinely do (though conditioning tends to be somewhat sport-specific). So, for example, for any given rowing machine pace my HR is lower than it used to be (at the same point in a given workout piece, etc.).
But, if the exercise you do allows for sufficient increased exertion in some form, you can keep pushing harder and still raise your heart rate all the way to max. Max doesn't decrease with fitness - not even max with respect to a given exercise activity. I can still max out my HR on a rowing machine, I just have to go a lot harder to do it than I used to (faster pace).
OP, 220-age is a poor predictor of max. Mine "should" be 159 (I'm 61), but that's just nicely anaerobic threshold. Actual max is around 181. I'd seriously undertrain if I thought it was 159.
There are somewhat better estimation formulas than 220-age, but if you're serious about fitness and want to use HR training zone methods to improve performance, a structured test of some type is best. (I'd offer a link to a better formula, but I have a tested max, so I've never really researched it, though I dimly recall from coaching-related education that they exist.)
But 90 or even 120 as a max would be a ridiculously extreme outlier. As you say, it's probably the HR monitor. If the HR monitor checks out, though, it wouldn't hurt to touch base with your doc.1 -
Spliner1969 wrote: »My RHR is in the low 40's, I've even seen it dip to 39 before before getting out of bed in the mornings. That's after two years of HIIT and steady cardio training. Doc says I simply am very fit in the cardiovascular department. If you take a good quality fish oil/omega-3 supplement it can also lower your RHR over time.
Same here1 -
I did Insanity Pure Cardio and manually checked my HR at few times, I averaged 150 bpm. My HRM measured 95. So mystery solved, my HRM is not very accurate. It looks like I will have to invest in a better one or just check it manually during workouts.1
-
Treehugger_88 wrote: »Ok thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'm leaning towards thinking its my heart rate monitor. I've checked it when resting and walking and its been accurate, but haven't checked during the rest time during workout. I will try. If it is really inaccurate I'll try a chest strap. If its just that my heart rate is low I'll try a few other workouts. Its weird, my HRM will usually spike up to 120 when my alarm goes off in the morning, and a few times its spiked when I've been arguing with someone, like my boyfriend haha.
@TavistockToad I did insanity pure cardio on Tuesday morning and was sweating and exhausted but monitor only recorded 90 beats per minute.
@NorthCascades I live really really far north where its often -30 or below in winter (which is most of the year). On warmer days I do go cross-country skiing fast (skate-skiing) for a few hours where I really exert myself, drenched it sweat, and my wrist HRM maxes out at 90. Next time I'll check it against my neck pulse.
I have really poor circulation in my hands. And I use a MIO fuze for my HR monitor (wrist based). When I am CX skiing or running when it is really cold I notice that it will sometimes lock onto the cadence that I am skating or running at. The one advantage that I have is that I can sometimes reposition the monitor higher on my arm. Or I will turn it off and back on and sometimes that does the trick and it will lock onto the correct heart rate. Also making sure that the monitor fits really snugly also helps with accuracy.0 -
Treehugger_88 wrote: »I did Insanity Pure Cardio and manually checked my HR at few times, I averaged 150 bpm. My HRM measured 95. So mystery solved, my HRM is not very accurate. It looks like I will have to invest in a better one or just check it manually during workouts.
Good news - well, it would be nice if your HRM worked, but it's even better that your heart is normal!
Thanks for checking back in - it's always nice to hear how these things play out.0 -
You might try putting your wrist-based HR monitor in your bra. Reportedly that fixes the problem for some, and is maybe more comfortable than a chest strap.
It's my next step with my Scoshe Rhythm+. It was working great until the weather warmed up and I started sweating more - I think it slips just enough on my arm to screw up the sensors. I tried tightening it more but only managed to cut off my circulation
1 -
Thanks! I will try those methods with my band for more accuracy.0
-
Treehugger_88 wrote: »I recently got a smartwatch with the Veryfit2.0 app to measure my heart rate and it says it only goes up to 90-100 during workouts and stays in the "fat-burning zone" for only 10 minutes or so. My workouts are 30-50 minute HIIT workouts at home 3-4 times a week. I'm 28 years old (220-28=192), so my heart rate should be getting much higher. I rotate between insanity beach body, bodyfit by amy, Christine Salus fitness workouts, popsugar fitness, or look up random kettlebell workouts. I'm in pretty good shape, 5'7 135 pounds, resting heart rate of 48. Just want to lose 5 pounds then maintain 130.
I live in a small town with no gym or fitness classes, jogging isn't an option because I live to far north = frostbite, tiny apartment so can't get any machines. They need to be bodyweight exercises with movement span of max 6 feet by 6 feet.
Any suggestions of other bodyweight HIIT workouts that'll get my heart rate higher and sustained longer? Other people with heart rate monitors, do you reach your optimal heart rate and sustain it? How?
I like Burpees, squat jumps, split jumps, lunge jumps, cursty lunge jumps, mountain climbers, high knees, pop squats, star jumps, push up jacks, seal push ups, jumping jacks, Thigh Slap Jumps.
Or you can search some of Fitnessblender workouts, They have a lot of HIIT workouts,
I hope I helped.
0 -
I say ya get a chest band. I have a Polar FT4 (about $50 on Amazon) and a Fitbit Charge HR. Sometimes I wear them together just for the sake of comparison and the Polar might have me 20 beats higher than the Fitbit at times. It's definitely more accurate but just more of a pain with the chest strap. The Fitbit has its moments where it goes blank. I do intervals on the treadmill and when I change my pace is when it lags. If I'm doing steady state it's more accurate. Your doing HIIT is jacking up your wrist-based readings probably.
Oh and my RHR is in the 40s too and I'm fine. Not an athlete by any means but the doctor has never said anything of concern about that or my approx. 85/60 blood pressure. I told him I was cold all the time and asked him to check my thyroid and he basically said I was just healthy and my thyroid is normal.0 -
I always thought my Polar HRM was relatively accurate for heart rate. For instance, during Insanity or something else high intensity, I would definitely be hitting my max 180-190ish. And that's like pouring sweat, barely able to catch my breath, I mean really pushing it.
I got a FitBit Charge HR 2 and the heart rate monitor on it is wildly different from the Polar HRM. Like I'll put in the same exertion levels and it's like '115' and I'm like, 'Yeah, no'. It's cool cause at least it give me conservative burns, but I 100% do not trust it for any type of high-intensity activity like that; And yes, before people say it, I know it's not meant to measure interval training and that, it's just something I use as a reference.0 -
Just got a new HRM, and tracked an evening ride (bicycle) via Strava. Fascinating! It even caught the moment where my husband suddenly turned in front of me when I was drinking my water, and I had a moment of panic trying to dodge him and put my bottle away and grab the brakes all at the same time ... bit of a heart rate spike!!
And going up hills, I spike early on the climb and then settle into a very steady HR.
So ... if your HR is working, it should catch all the little changes as you do different things.0 -
Try wearing it high on your upper arm (around the bicep/delt tie-in), with the sensor on the outside of your arm. I wear my Rhythm+ there (only needs to be tight enough to avoid slippage) and it tracks perfectly even when I'm drenched in sweat.You might try putting your wrist-based HR monitor in your bra. Reportedly that fixes the problem for some, and is maybe more comfortable than a chest strap.
It's my next step with my Scoshe Rhythm+. It was working great until the weather warmed up and I started sweating more - I think it slips just enough on my arm to screw up the sensors. I tried tightening it more but only managed to cut off my circulation
My RHR in the mornings upon waking up is usually anywhere from 46-50. I'm 54 years old and in decent shape, but not an elite athlete by any means. It certainly hasn't decreased my max HR or the ability to get it there, though - I normally sustain HRs in the 130s-140s while running or bicycling, with no more than moderate perceived exertion, and have had it into the mid-160s (see next paragraph). While doing a sustained brisk walk (4 mph), it's usually somewhere around the low/mid 90s.If your resting heart rate is low (like it is, it's below 50) then your exercising heart rate won't be as high...
The 220-age formula gives me a calculated max HR of 166, but during a run last week I was sustaining a heart rate of 164-165, pushing a bit hard but not to the point where I was gasping for breath. If that formula was correct, I should have been redlining and unable to continue at that rate. I haven't had my MHR tested, but I'm pretty confident that it's somewhere above 166....OP, 220-age is a poor predictor of max. Mine "should" be 159 (I'm 61), but that's just nicely anaerobic threshold. Actual max is around 181. I'd seriously undertrain if I thought it was 159...1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions