Max Heart Rate?

pondee629

The following is a reprint from the Long Distance Runners board casting a wider net for responses:

A question re max heart rate:

I'm a 62 year old male and, according to most calculations, should have a max heart rate of 160+/-. Yesterday May 14th I ran a 5K with an average heart rate, as measured on my Garmin Forerunner 225 at the wrist, of 157 and a max of 173. Got over 160 at about 1.25 miles and stayed there, or over, for the rest of the run. Cleared 170 at 3 miles and finished at the 173.

Is this a problem? Is my Max heart rate 170 +/-? Is it really relevant? I was winded at the finish but felt no ill effects at all.

thanks

Aldomas

Not a problem, indeed. From what I've read, that formula falls apart at our age. Some Norwegian researchers have come up with one that works better. 211 minus 64% of AGE.

Here's the url:

http://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax

pondee629

Those numbers fit in more with my results.

Aldomas

By the way, you were just winded? I'd be laying on the ground gasping... LOL

pondee629

Aldomas wrote: »

By the way, you were just winded? I'd be laying on the ground gasping... LOL

Nope, winded, finished the race, got my "Run the Hook" mason jar glass, walked over to my cheering section, wife and two daughters, said hi, got some water, walked around to cool down, got more water, checked my time and placement, time is really on my wrist but... walked to the car and went to lunch. Felt great the rest of the day.

Truth be told, was probably "all out" at the 173 HR ;-) but it was after mile 3 in a 3.1 run. more concerned about the average rate (157) being so close to the supposed Max (160). Your new table has me feeling better.

lporter229

I just left you a response on your other thread.

pondee629

lporter229 wrote: »

I just left you a response on your other thread.

Thanks, and I left you an additional question ;-)

Machka9

Aldomas wrote: »

Not a problem, indeed. From what I've read, that formula falls apart at our age. Some Norwegian researchers have come up with one that works better. 211 minus 64% of AGE.

Here's the url:

http://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax

Interesting ... but even that seems a bit low.

Spliner1969

Wrist mounted monitors aren't all that accurate anyway. Get yourself a chest strap for comparison. Regardless, everyone is different, and it really depends more on your personal fitness level than any one formula. Occasional spikes into max territory should be fine I'd think.

sijomial

I was winded at the finish but felt no ill effects at all.

So not really a problem and neither will it be your actual maximum HR.
There's a very wide personal variation, just like the variation in resting HR.

I got close to my actual max HR doing self-tests on a Concept2 but hit my real maximum during a VO2 max test in a sports science lab which takes you right to the point of failure. Took a few days to recover from that!

Unless you do HR zone training it's more for interest sake but it did give me some confidence when cycling up big hills that although I sometimes felt I was going to die I wasn't really.

Aldomas

Spliner1969 wrote: »

Wrist mounted monitors aren't all that accurate anyway. Get yourself a chest strap for comparison.

I wouldn't discount wrist mounted monitors entirely, but the technology used to capture the HR is different, and apparently starts to lose accuracy when you're going all out. So I much prefer the chest strap as well.

And especially important to those of us over sixty...

sijomial wrote: »

although I sometimes felt I was going to die I wasn't really.

pegdale21

This has been something that I used to worry about. I work in rescue/first response, and have seen what can happen when people go at their max heart rate while working out. All I can say is thank God for AEDs. Problem is that some medications and possibly just aging will lengthen your QT interval which is what will cause sudden death when your heart rate gets too high.

This has made me a wee bit paranoid when working out and getting my heart rate too high. I used to noticed my heart rate would get up over 170-190 really easy when I was first starting out and in Terrible health. But after training for about 3 years now, my heart rate doesn't ever get that high. And if it is getting close to that, I start to feel it and slow down. I try to keep my heart rate in the 80% range (max) for my age.

Scary thing about max heart rate is that the heart may not be getting that awesome oxygenated blood that it Really needs to keep beating. And the older we get, the more plaque and inflammation we may have in our arteries from poor eating habits, chemicals, toxins, etc.
The good thing is that you were not feeling it. But I would Not suggest you stay at that range for very long.

Smartest suggestion is that you have an EKG done by your physician. Normal QT intervals should be about 0.40 depending on sex of the patient for one. But QTc is the more important number. And I believe ALL athletes should be subjected to a stress test so that those numbers can be measured during activity.

GaryRuns

I read somewhere that the 220-age formula was based on a bunch of 20-something pro runners. As others have pointed out, there are better formulas, particularly for those of us who are no longer 20-somethings. But even those are just approximations and like most things based on averages there are outliers. As long as you're feeling okay then it's likely nothing to worry about. Never a bad idea to see a doc if you have concerns though.

For me, I generally just do a test to determine my max. Run about a mile at a brisk pace, find a hill and sprint up it for a good minute or two until I'm ready to pass out. That's my max. It's about 3 or 4 bpm above what the 220-age formula gives. Needless to say, don't do this if you're not healthy.

NorthCascades

Having used Garmin's Elevate wrist sensor for a couple years now, I don't trust it, and wouldn't even begin to worry about anything it told me until I verified it with a chest strap.

That said, even if those numbers are correct, they're nothing to worry about.

JetJaguar

Those age-based heart rate formulas are almost as misunderstood as BMI. The formulas were originally intended as a back-of-envelope estimate of averages for large populations, they were never meant to be applied to an individual. Errors of as much as 20 bpm are not uncommon; 220 - Age underestimates my own measured max HR by about a dozen bpm, for example. It also doesn't take activity into account, and max HR is sport-specific because different exercises use different muscle groups.

Assuming normal heart function (check with your doctor if you believe you have concerns), you can to test yourself to find your own max. Though personally when I was training by heart rate (cycling and running), I found threshold heart rate to be more useful and basically ignored max.

spiriteagle99

A 5K is a pretty good indicator of max HR, though I don't know how accurate the wrist HRM is. Most of us don't work hard enough to test our actual maximums, aside from racing or doing hill repeats.

As stated above, individuals vary widely. At 60, I can get up to 175 just doing 1 minute intervals at 10k pace. I've been at 180 doing an easy run on hills. I haven't bothered to get a true maximum, because I don't plan to do HR training. I just play with the numbers sometimes. I have friends who have done well with Maffetone training, but his numbers are way too low for me. As soon as I am out of a walk, I'm in the 140s.

BrianSharpe

The old formula of 220-age is pretty meaningless, it was actually intended for recovering heart attack victims.

If you weren't feeling dizzy and/or gasping for breath you're probably just fine. The only really accurate way to determine maxHR is to get tested (you can do your VO2 max at the same time) but it's kind of pricey and there aren't facilities to do that every where.

Here's a link from RW for a DIY test that will be pretty close.....

runnersworld.com/race-training/how-to-find-your-max-heart-rate

stealthq

As others have said, variation is huge for max heart rate. If the typical formulas don't apply well for you, it's not cause for alarm in the absence of other red flags for cardiovascular issues.

AnnPT77

+1 to age-based formulas being goofy. There exist sub-maximal self-tests for estimating max. I have to admit I haven't researched them (was max tested on a rowing step test so I know my actual), but it's got to be more accurate than age-based formulas.

Rate of perceived exertion is actually a pretty good rough guide for training purposes. You say you held 160(ish) for most of your 5K. Clearly, 160 is not your max. It won't give you your max per se, but you can figure out where you are in terms of training zones from something like this:

https://youtu.be/e8vRWNb0suE

I'm 61. My max tested a few years back at around 180. Since the HR zones I've derived from that are still feeling consistent with what I feel during workouts (RPE-wise), I'd infer that my max is still in that vicinity (as you'd expect, since decline with age isn't usually rapid in people who continue working out with intensity).

If you weren't feeling quite taxed at 160, I'm taking a wild and speculative guess that your max may be higher than mine (160 would be anaerobic threshold for me - I can hold something near that for my races, but rowing's 1K or 2K sprints take less time than a runner's 5K . . . and I wouldn't feel completely unfussed afterwards.)