Heart Rates
tonyv325
Posts: 13 Member
Hi to all. I was wondering if someone might be able to help me here. I believe that your maximum heart rate is 220 minus your age. In my case that is 220 minus 51 gives a max HR of 169. Thing is I can operate with my heart rate in the 160s without any major fatigue. In a 45 minute session on a stationary bike I operate in the 150 to 155 range for 30 minutes and then finish with 15 minutes in the low 160s. Although I'm healthy and have been relatively active over the last decade I am far from a super athlete in fact if you seen me you would think the only activity I get is walking to the fridge and reaching for the microwave. Question is am I doing myself more harm than good by pushing my heart like this? I don't get any warning signs and could keep going longer if I needed to. I have a resting HR in the low 60s and after I finish exercise it returns to that quite easily and I feel great afterwards. I would appreciate any comments here.
0
Replies
-
The formula is not applicable to many people. It deals with averages, and some of us just aren't average. I am 61, a marathon runner, and my maximum is around 190. There are ways to test your actual maximum, though I'm not sure what they are on a bike. As long as you can speak whole sentences while you exercise, you aren't stressing your heart. If you can speak, but in short sentences, your effort is moderate, but still not maximum. If you can't go more than 30 seconds without needing to stop, then you are probably close to your maximum. Go by your perceived rate of exertion, not an arbitrary number that doesn't apply to you.4
-
Hi to all. I was wondering if someone might be able to help me here. I believe that your maximum heart rate is 220 minus your age. In my case that is 220 minus 51 gives a max HR of 169. Thing is I can operate with my heart rate in the 160s without any major fatigue. In a 45 minute session on a stationary bike I operate in the 150 to 155 range for 30 minutes and then finish with 15 minutes in the low 160s. Although I'm healthy and have been relatively active over the last decade I am far from a super athlete in fact if you seen me you would think the only activity I get is walking to the fridge and reaching for the microwave. Question is am I doing myself more harm than good by pushing my heart like this? I don't get any warning signs and could keep going longer if I needed to. I have a resting HR in the low 60s and after I finish exercise it returns to that quite easily and I feel great afterwards. I would appreciate any comments here.
The age-prediction equations are only rough estimates. It can be perfectly normal to have an actual max heart rate that is 20-30 beats/min higher than your age-predicted number.
Unless you have symptoms (dizziness, chest pain, inappropriate shortness of breath) or some other medical conditions, it is highly unlikely you are doing yourself any “harm” while exercising at those rates.
If you saw sudden increases to very high rates, esp w/symptoms, that might be cause for concern, but you are not experiencing that, so I wouldn’t worry.
It would be helpful to just observe your HR at various intensities, compare those numbers with your rate of perceived exertion (breathing) and develop your own heart rate “range”. It would also be useful to have this information in case you ever mentioned to your doctor and he/she became concerned.
In addition: HRM calorie counts will be greatly overstated for you because they will assume you are working at 100% intensity; stay away from HR interactive cardio programs on machines (eg “fat burn” programs) because they will not work you hard enough; and if you ever do a submax aerobic test-say as part of a fitness assessment at a gym-it will significantly UNDERestimate your aerobic fitness capacity.
2 -
Hi to all. I was wondering if someone might be able to help me here. I believe that your maximum heart rate is 220 minus your age. In my case that is 220 minus 51 gives a max HR of 169. Thing is I can operate with my heart rate in the 160s without any major fatigue. In a 45 minute session on a stationary bike I operate in the 150 to 155 range for 30 minutes and then finish with 15 minutes in the low 160s. Although I'm healthy and have been relatively active over the last decade I am far from a super athlete in fact if you seen me you would think the only activity I get is walking to the fridge and reaching for the microwave. Question is am I doing myself more harm than good by pushing my heart like this? I don't get any warning signs and could keep going longer if I needed to. I have a resting HR in the low 60s and after I finish exercise it returns to that quite easily and I feel great afterwards. I would appreciate any comments here.
What are you trying to achieve?0 -
Thanks so much the replies I really appreciate the info. As to what I am trying to achieve well nothing specific other than to have longer to work through my kids inheritance. I had a back injury which culminated in surgery last year and the result of too much sitting around eating is 15kg (33 lbs) extra on the scales so that and my back recovery are my immediate priorities but other than that I just enjoy training hard.1
-
There are always outliers. I know a few who can really get their HR very high. More about perceived exertion. I would find your max HR and calculate percentages around that.1
-
Thanks so much the replies I really appreciate the info. As to what I am trying to achieve well nothing specific other than to have longer to work through my kids inheritance. I had a back injury which culminated in surgery last year and the result of too much sitting around eating is 15kg (33 lbs) extra on the scales so that and my back recovery are my immediate priorities but other than that I just enjoy training hard.
If you just want to train hard your HR at various levels of perceived exertions, max HR and VO2max don't really matter. Go, and train hard and enjoy it. If you're really worried, you should talk to a Dr, not a forum of strangers who are wannabe experts.5 -
ronocnikral wrote: »Thanks so much the replies I really appreciate the info. As to what I am trying to achieve well nothing specific other than to have longer to work through my kids inheritance. I had a back injury which culminated in surgery last year and the result of too much sitting around eating is 15kg (33 lbs) extra on the scales so that and my back recovery are my immediate priorities but other than that I just enjoy training hard.
If you just want to train hard your HR at various levels of perceived exertions, max HR and VO2max don't really matter. Go, and train hard and enjoy it. If you're really worried, you should talk to a Dr, not a forum of strangers who are wannabe experts.
Not a wannabe, babycakes.
5 -
ronocnikral wrote: »Thanks so much the replies I really appreciate the info. As to what I am trying to achieve well nothing specific other than to have longer to work through my kids inheritance. I had a back injury which culminated in surgery last year and the result of too much sitting around eating is 15kg (33 lbs) extra on the scales so that and my back recovery are my immediate priorities but other than that I just enjoy training hard.
If you just want to train hard your HR at various levels of perceived exertions, max HR and VO2max don't really matter. Go, and train hard and enjoy it. If you're really worried, you should talk to a Dr, not a forum of strangers who are wannabe experts.
Not a wannabe, babycakes.
It wasn't aimed at any one person in particular, just talking about the general "community." my self included.
Didn't mean to offend you, toots.0 -
I'm guessing Azdak is literally a medical professional.1
-
Heh.
On the internet, you never know when you're exchanging pointed remarks with an actual expert. Part of the fun, innit?
2 -
.
<good stuff snipped by responder>
In addition: HRM calorie counts will be greatly overstated for you because they will assume you are working at 100% intensity; stay away from HR interactive cardio programs on machines (eg “fat burn” programs) because they will not work you hard enough; and if you ever do a submax aerobic test-say as part of a fitness assessment at a gym-it will significantly UNDERestimate your aerobic fitness capacity.
That (bolded) had never occurred to me. Is it because they hold you to too low a HR based on underestimated max, so output is less than it would've been at X% of your true max, making your estimated VO2 max an underestimate as well?
I'm higher than 220-age (estimate is 158, tested max around 180), so I'd like to understand the limitations of the submax test if I can.
Thanks!0 -
.
<good stuff snipped by responder>
In addition: HRM calorie counts will be greatly overstated for you because they will assume you are working at 100% intensity; stay away from HR interactive cardio programs on machines (eg “fat burn” programs) because they will not work you hard enough; and if you ever do a submax aerobic test-say as part of a fitness assessment at a gym-it will significantly UNDERestimate your aerobic fitness capacity.
That (bolded) had never occurred to me. Is it because they hold you to too low a HR based on underestimated max, so output is less than it would've been at X% of your true max, making your estimated VO2 max an underestimate as well?
I'm higher than 220-age (estimate is 158, tested max around 180), so I'd like to understand the limitations of the submax test if I can.
Thanks!
A submax test is based on two concepts: 1) there is a linear relationship between workload and heart rate (up to 100% max); 2) There is also a linear increase in oxygen uptake that parallels the increase in HR—so HR can be used as a proxy for oxygen uptake.
Since the response is linear, we can measure HR and workload at a submax level and extend the line to estimate what oxygen uptake would be at HR max. (HR max is the second point that establishes the slope of the line). Oxygen uptake at the submax level is estimated using something like treadmill speed and elevation, or a calibrated cycle ergometer.
Since this is a submax test, we have to estimate HR max. That is done using an age-prediction formula. So if I did a test on you and the submax data point was 5 METs at a HR of 145 and the estimated aerobic max was your MET value at a heart rate of 158, that number would be lower than if we extended the line to your true HR max of 180. Significantly lower.
I hope this makes sense. It’s easy to show with graph paper; not so easy with just words.
The other “real life” consequence of this would be if you ever had to undergo any diagnostic graded exercise test, like a stress ECG, stress echo, or perhaps even a nuclear scan. They typically use 85% of estimated HR max as a cut off point for the test.The diagnostic accuracy of these tests usually is affected by the level of intensity reached, so if they stop you at 65-70% instead of your actual 85%, the test results could be less accurate. They tend to be risk-averse in most medical testing facilities so it might be a challenge to convince them to let you push harder, but I would have the conversation (hopefully, it won’t be necessary any time soon ;-)1 -
ronocnikral wrote: »ronocnikral wrote: »Thanks so much the replies I really appreciate the info. As to what I am trying to achieve well nothing specific other than to have longer to work through my kids inheritance. I had a back injury which culminated in surgery last year and the result of too much sitting around eating is 15kg (33 lbs) extra on the scales so that and my back recovery are my immediate priorities but other than that I just enjoy training hard.
If you just want to train hard your HR at various levels of perceived exertions, max HR and VO2max don't really matter. Go, and train hard and enjoy it. If you're really worried, you should talk to a Dr, not a forum of strangers who are wannabe experts.
Not a wannabe, babycakes.
It wasn't aimed at any one person in particular, just talking about the general "community." my self included.
Didn't mean to offend you, toots.
You can’t offend me, so no worries.
However, this is a very real issue. Heart rate variability is something that few doctors are aware of, so going to a doctor about this without any background knowledge would very likely lead to greater confusion, and the possibility of more misinformation.
This is something that I deal with frequently—at least weekly, sometimes daily. People are often being scared out of working out, or they are pushed into suboptimal workouts because doctors and trainers think they have a problem, when in fact they have a normal (for them) heart rate response to exercise.
2 -
.
<good stuff snipped by responder>
In addition: HRM calorie counts will be greatly overstated for you because they will assume you are working at 100% intensity; stay away from HR interactive cardio programs on machines (eg “fat burn” programs) because they will not work you hard enough; and if you ever do a submax aerobic test-say as part of a fitness assessment at a gym-it will significantly UNDERestimate your aerobic fitness capacity.
That (bolded) had never occurred to me. Is it because they hold you to too low a HR based on underestimated max, so output is less than it would've been at X% of your true max, making your estimated VO2 max an underestimate as well?
I'm higher than 220-age (estimate is 158, tested max around 180), so I'd like to understand the limitations of the submax test if I can.
Thanks!
A submax test is based on two concepts: 1) there is a linear relationship between workload and heart rate (up to 100% max); 2) There is also a linear increase in oxygen uptake that parallels the increase in HR—so HR can be used as a proxy for oxygen uptake.
Since the response is linear, we can measure HR and workload at a submax level and extend the line to estimate what oxygen uptake would be at HR max. (HR max is the second point that establishes the slope of the line). Oxygen uptake at the submax level is estimated using something like treadmill speed and elevation, or a calibrated cycle ergometer.
Since this is a submax test, we have to estimate HR max. That is done using an age-prediction formula. So if I did a test on you and the submax data point was 5 METs at a HR of 145 and the estimated aerobic max was your MET value at a heart rate of 158, that number would be lower than if we extended the line to your true HR max of 180. Significantly lower.
I hope this makes sense. It’s easy to show with graph paper; not so easy with just words.
The other “real life” consequence of this would be if you ever had to undergo any diagnostic graded exercise test, like a stress ECG, stress echo, or perhaps even a nuclear scan. They typically use 85% of estimated HR max as a cut off point for the test.The diagnostic accuracy of these tests usually is affected by the level of intensity reached, so if they stop you at 65-70% instead of your actual 85%, the test results could be less accurate. They tend to be risk-averse in most medical testing facilities so it might be a challenge to convince them to let you push harder, but I would have the conversation (hopefully, it won’t be necessary any time soon ;-)
Thank you. You're very clear: I can visualize the graph paper part. This is good to know.
Amusingly, I actually did a treadmill stress ECG (I believe it was) a few years back (long story, no medical problem really).
Not being forewarned, I actually had this argument with them during the stress test when they wanted me to stop (somewhere in the 140s IIRC) and I didn't want to. Plausible that 140s would've been around 0.85 x (220 - age) at the time, though I don't recall exactly when it was. It was annoying in real time, funny in retrospect.
Again, thanks.2 -
.
<good stuff snipped by responder>
In addition: HRM calorie counts will be greatly overstated for you because they will assume you are working at 100% intensity; stay away from HR interactive cardio programs on machines (eg “fat burn” programs) because they will not work you hard enough; and if you ever do a submax aerobic test-say as part of a fitness assessment at a gym-it will significantly UNDERestimate your aerobic fitness capacity.
That (bolded) had never occurred to me. Is it because they hold you to too low a HR based on underestimated max, so output is less than it would've been at X% of your true max, making your estimated VO2 max an underestimate as well?
I'm higher than 220-age (estimate is 158, tested max around 180), so I'd like to understand the limitations of the submax test if I can.
Thanks!
A submax test is based on two concepts: 1) there is a linear relationship between workload and heart rate (up to 100% max); 2) There is also a linear increase in oxygen uptake that parallels the increase in HR—so HR can be used as a proxy for oxygen uptake.
Since the response is linear, we can measure HR and workload at a submax level and extend the line to estimate what oxygen uptake would be at HR max. (HR max is the second point that establishes the slope of the line). Oxygen uptake at the submax level is estimated using something like treadmill speed and elevation, or a calibrated cycle ergometer.
Since this is a submax test, we have to estimate HR max. That is done using an age-prediction formula. So if I did a test on you and the submax data point was 5 METs at a HR of 145 and the estimated aerobic max was your MET value at a heart rate of 158, that number would be lower than if we extended the line to your true HR max of 180. Significantly lower.
I hope this makes sense. It’s easy to show with graph paper; not so easy with just words.
The other “real life” consequence of this would be if you ever had to undergo any diagnostic graded exercise test, like a stress ECG, stress echo, or perhaps even a nuclear scan. They typically use 85% of estimated HR max as a cut off point for the test.The diagnostic accuracy of these tests usually is affected by the level of intensity reached, so if they stop you at 65-70% instead of your actual 85%, the test results could be less accurate. They tend to be risk-averse in most medical testing facilities so it might be a challenge to convince them to let you push harder, but I would have the conversation (hopefully, it won’t be necessary any time soon ;-)
Thank you. You're very clear: I can visualize the graph paper part. This is good to know.
Amusingly, I actually did a treadmill stress ECG (I believe it was) a few years back (long story, no medical problem really).
Not being forewarned, I actually had this argument with them during the stress test when they wanted me to stop (somewhere in the 140s IIRC) and I didn't want to. Plausible that 140s would've been around 0.85 x (220 - age) at the time, though I don't recall exactly when it was. It was annoying in real time, funny in retrospect.
Again, thanks.
I’m not surprised. I’ve had the same thing happen to me. The worst part of this is that, if you are doing just a standard ECG exercise test, stopping you at that low level makes the test diagnostically almost worthless. Many of the ECG abnormalities you are looking for do not show up until you are at the 90%+ intensity level.
My big fight is that they want me to hold on to the handrails and I refuse. When I explain why, I just get a blank stare like I just started speaking in Klingon.
As someone who is trained specifically to conduct graded exercise tests, this annoys me to no end that EPs like myself have been pushed out of the business and replaced by “cardio techs” who don’t know anything but a procedure checklist.
2 -
Wow that is great info and I'm glad I asked. For the record my question wasn't really based on any medical concerns and reading over it I probably worded it poorly. I have sort medical advice on this so my question here was more directed at what level of exertion is appropriate for me as the charts in the gym don't apply. I thank you for your input Azdak you obviously know what you are talking about and I find this stuff really interesting. Only thing is that you do look a lot like a dog
0 -
One of the other things to bear in mind is that the 220 - your age estimate wasn't actually intended for exercise use. It was used by cardiologist as an assessment tool or guideline.
I've actually done a formal max HR test. It's a ramp test with steadily increasing intensity to the point you simply cannot continue - there was no mistaking that point!
Unlike your "I don't get any warning signs and could keep going longer if I needed to" I was at complete collapse, felt like I was dying. Gave myself exercised induced asthma for a few days and felt like I had been hit by a bus. BTW - I did it when I was already fit, it wouldn't be at all sensible to attempt early in someone's fitness journey.
That number was higher than predicted but not by a huge margin (5%). I'm a relatively large outlier for min HR and a small outlier for max HR. Unlike my brother who was still hitting 200bpm at age sixty, he's a huge outlier for both minimum (high 30's BPM) and maximum HR.
Really I would say unless you have advanced cardio fitness goals then sometimes less data is better than more - perceived exertion is an absolutely fine guide for you I would suggest.1 -
Yeah thanks. I have reached that conclusion. Defo not keen on the getting hit by a bus scenario. After reading all these great insights I have decided to do away with my concern on heart rates. I figure if I go hard for however long I decide and finish up with a saturated shirt and feeling great that will be good enough.3
-
Yeah thanks. I have reached that conclusion. Defo not keen on the getting hit by a bus scenario. After reading all these great insights I have decided to do away with my concern on heart rates. I figure if I go hard for however long I decide and finish up with a saturated shirt and feeling great that will be good enough.
That "feeling great" part can be really important, so I hope you don't mind if I riff on that a bit.
I'm not sure whether your current goals are fitness driven, or include weight loss. If weight loss is a major goal, there's another reason not to go super hard all the time. Very intense exercise, when repeated day after day, can be counter-productive.
Very intense exercise tends to be more fatiguing per calorie burned than moderate intensity but still challenging exercise (speaking loosely, no mathematical formula ). Where that can cause problems is if the fatigue encourages our daily life activity to ramp down, perhaps subtly, to the point where we burn fewer calories in daily life than usual, cancelling out a chunk of the workout burn, potentially even a big chunk.
For example, if fatigued, we may sit more, sleep a little more, minimize the effort required for household chores (cook a simpler dinner, say), or choose hobby/leisure activities that are lower energy.
It's not that this is a guaranteed result of daily/frequent very intense exercise, but it is a risk, and could affect weight loss rate . . . not to mention overall happiness.0 -
My immediate goal is to remove the 30 pound spare tyre that has attached itself to my abdomen. After that well I am not too sure it will pretty much being healthy and happy. I really enjoy having to stop at the top of the hill to wait for my two ipad / xbox generation teenagers to catch up. I take the point about what you do outside the gym is just as important as what you do in it and am mindful of that. At the moment I am doing 45 to 90 minutes a day and it's not slowing me down too much, I have resumed my active lifestyle I had in place before L4 and L5 crashed on me last year and that is going pretty well. Thanks for comment.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
- 232.5K 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