Calorie Counter

Message Boards Fitness and Exercise
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Oops, maxHR fail?

yirarayirara Member Posts: 5,565 Member Member Posts: 5,565 Member
My maxHR estimate might be a bit too low.

Quite a few years ago I did a few maxHR attempts during spinning bike classes. I managed to get to 200 after several build-ups. I'm sure I didn't get my actual max as I wasn't fit enough. I figured my maxHR for running is higher as it's a lot more difficult for me, so I had it at 210 for a couple of years, and then lowered it to 205 at a certain time.

Not having run for several months I started about 3 weeks again. Today I felt extremely restless, and ran a lot faster than I should have at my current level of fitness. And ran about 4-5 minutes above 90% of this 205bpm. Guess it's time to set it a bit higher? (note: I'll never be able to do a proper maxHR test for running due to dysautonomia triggered by running, and no spinning class available).
edited November 21

Replies

  • spiriteagle99spiriteagle99 Member Posts: 2,888 Member Member Posts: 2,888 Member
    If you are using a wrist HRM, it can be very inaccurate depending on how tight or loose it is, among other factors. With a chest strap my maximum is about 185. With a wrist HRM I have been at 205 on occasion. At age 63, that seems a bit unlikely. I go by effort rather than what the HRM says.
  • yirarayirara Member Posts: 5,565 Member Member Posts: 5,565 Member
    I know it’s right as I’ve tested this thing often enough. Besides, I saw much higher numbers in a distant past (just by counting and multiplying). Yes, it’s an arm sensor. The spinning one was with a chest sensor, but those do nastey things to my ribs and are a no for me, unless I want to move ribs back into place after each run.
  • robertw486robertw486 Member, Greeter, Premium Posts: 2,140 Member Member, Greeter, Premium Posts: 2,140 Member
    Unless my doctor has concerns, I just use whatever my max is. For the most part, my max has been above most of the formulas and such as well for many years.

    If you are using it as a setting on a device, I'd just go with the highest number you verify to have hit.
  • yirarayirara Member Posts: 5,565 Member Member Posts: 5,565 Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    Unless my doctor has concerns, I just use whatever my max is. For the most part, my max has been above most of the formulas and such as well for many years.

    If you are using it as a setting on a device, I'd just go with the highest number you verify to have hit.

    I use maxHR for training zones. I could use 200 as I've hit that (on a bike) in the past. But that means untrained me managed to run at 95% HRmax for several minutes last night. That seems rather unlikely.
  • sijomialsijomial Member Posts: 17,252 Member Member Posts: 17,252 Member
    yirara wrote: »
    robertw486 wrote: »
    Unless my doctor has concerns, I just use whatever my max is. For the most part, my max has been above most of the formulas and such as well for many years.

    If you are using it as a setting on a device, I'd just go with the highest number you verify to have hit.

    I use maxHR for training zones. I could use 200 as I've hit that (on a bike) in the past. But that means untrained me managed to run at 95% HRmax for several minutes last night. That seems rather unlikely.

    Guess as you can't currently do a structured maximal effort HR test.
    Add 5% to the highest number you recently saw and you probably won't be too far off.

    Alternatively I know there are sub-maximal tests for cycling to estimate MaxHR so presume there are similar protocols for running?
    (Whether they are more accurate than recently highest achieved + 5% is debateable I suppose!)

    Zone training doesn't have to be that precise to be useful, the edges of the zones aren't a hard border in terms of fitness benefits.
  • yirarayirara Member Posts: 5,565 Member Member Posts: 5,565 Member
    Thanks a lot Sijomial. I think I will leave it at 205 for now. I use training zones also for kind of medical reasons: If I manage something at a certain hr two days earlier, and at a higher one today then I need to keep a few things in mind. Having nice colours depending on training bands just makes it easier to spot.
  • JthanmyfitnesspalJthanmyfitnesspal Member, Premium Posts: 2,493 Member Member, Premium Posts: 2,493 Member
    I got mine from a 5k that was more than a year ago. I did a good sprint at the end and really pushed it, seeing a pretty reasonable number for my age.

    I've compare wrist with chest many times. Wrist works fine if the watch is pretty tight. Chest works fine if there is some dampness under the electrodes.
  • yirarayirara Member Posts: 5,565 Member Member Posts: 5,565 Member
    Congratulations!
    I generally get good results from arm sensors due to ... well, being me basically: very pale, transparent skin and literally no hair. I wouldn't trust a wrist sensor though as I suffer from cold hands. And I do see that my fitbit gets into problems every now and then.
    My run today was a bit *kitten*. I went straight from my guessed <70% zone towards >80%. Then you get something as cool as this below. Thanks a lot dysautonomia! :D Needless to say: it was a very short run. :s

    7guujrl44j38.png
    edited November 23
  • heybalesheybales Member Posts: 18,166 Member Member Posts: 18,166 Member
    I'd actually suggest going for LT/AT zone training in that case.

    HRmax doesn't matter (though I agree with figuring a short ramp-up effort hitting a high is 5% off HRmax - end of an already hard effort would not be) in those cases, and a 30 min running test is all that's needed with usually a flat track for level effort.

    You may not be at fitness level to do 30 min solid high HR yet though.
    But if you are, start at 90 or 95% of your current HRmax after a good warmup, and just try to hold for 30 min.
    Don't do it day after a hard workout or big diet day.
    If you feel you can increase pace slightly do it, or lower if needed - just want to attempt as level an effort at max you can do for the last 20 min.

    https://enduranceworks.com/blog/how-to-estimate-run-lactate-threshold-heart-rate-and-pace-with-a-field-test/

    As to HR zones to use then for training, not sure if it helps with your specific desires:
    https://www.podiumrunner.com/training/running-101-running-with-a-heart-rate-monitor/
  • yirarayirara Member Posts: 5,565 Member Member Posts: 5,565 Member
    I don't think I'll ever be able to do a proper high HR run because then the same happens as in the run yesterday: Start running fast too quickly and my HR doesn't come up at all. Slow down a bit because running with a too low HR doesn't really work, and then my HR shoots up and stays there until I stop running, or drops down again and remains there. Neither is useful for running for a longer time. It's a bit like POTs, but more complicated. That's why I have to go with my best guess. And at the moment my best guess is somewhere between 205 and 210. Maybe. :D
  • jeffrey_adjeffrey_ad Member, Premium Posts: 606 Member Member, Premium Posts: 606 Member
    I recently got a chest-strap heart monitor that I have used in cycling and indoor rowing and have noticed a similar issue, where I supposedly spent most of the time above anaerobic threshold. (I'm 52 and would have max HR of 168 by the simple formula). I recently did an anaerobic threshold test on the rower, doing three 8 minute segments at fast past with 8 minutes rest between. Based on the default settings, I'm doing over 38% above anaerobic threshold.

    b83162sxqqof.png

    ncairjzqn839.png

    I recalculated the anaerobic threshold as the average of the last 4 minutes of the third 8-minute segment (which comes out to 167). I have seen several ways of calculating the zones based on the AT, but the one suggested by @heybales seems reasonable. I have reproduced this below. I'll use this for a while in different workouts to see how well it seems to fit.

    55idz6yhd99j.png

    yyrnlvi3hbpt.png
Sign In or Register to comment.