Heart rate not getting high enough - need exercise suggestions
Options
Replies
-
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.0
-
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.
My resting heart rate is in the 40s. I get it into the 180s exercising vigorously.0 -
xsmilexforxmex wrote: »Treehugger_88 wrote: »I'm in pretty good shape, 5'7 135 pounds, resting heart rate of 48.
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.
I would say verify your HR to your HRM- you can feel a pulse in your wrist, about a centimeter in from the lines on your wrist, on your thumb side looking at your palm; or you can find it in your neck. Count the beats for 15 seconds and multiply by 4... you can count a full minute if you want to be very accurate.
It's not especially low for someone who is fit...don't have to be an elite athlete...people who regularly do cardiovascular fitness and endurance work can have lower RHRs. Mine tends to be mid 50s.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »@Treehugger_88 Unless you're on meds that regulate your HR, there's no way it's only 90 bpm while you skate ski.
Yes!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!1 -
I've used a chest strap HR monitor for years and they are definitely the most accurate, but can be uncomfortable for some and can be a little bit of a hassle to put on every time you workout. I have recently been using another HR monitor that has been as accurate as my chest strap (see link). I've worn them both for a week during workouts without much of a difference between the two and have now switched over.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00JQHTJS2/ref=cm_sw_r_sms_c_api_sqgSyb22A3GBH
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »(1) The HRM in your smart watch is probably not working very well. Wrist based HRMs need to be worn just right to function properly.
(2) It's not HIIT if you're doing it for 30 to 50 minutes.
(3) Exercise produces heat, which is the opposite of frostbite.
(4) Cross country skiing at a fast pace.
I'd just like to put some emphasis on the bold, because people commonly mistake circuits/intervals/what have you as HIIT. You aren't doing true HIIT for 30+ minutes.
1 -
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?
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Heart rate response is incredibly varied from one person to the next. It's not like everybody has the same range and you just shift it around based on their RHR. And 50 really isn't abnormally low.0
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions