Heart rate issues- having to slow down 😥

minnelizzy

So I’m doing a C25K program after being very sedentary for about 6 months. I’m about 20lbs overweight as well and 41. I haven’t been paying attention to my heart rate- just following the program and trying to be semi- fast so I don’t feel like a slug. I noticed my last two sessions that I felt unwell- nauseous, hard to breathe, and my knees are hurting. Well I looked at my heart rate- at it was almost 200 for extended periods. So I started reading and that’s the issue. Ive been so concerned with not being slow that I’m just going outside my current fitness level too much which isn’t helping in the short or long term. So I’m going to continue but I’m am going to try and learn to be okay as a turtle. Just thought I would put this out there in case others have similar issues. Slow and steady is better than faster and quitting which is what I’ve done in the past. Good luck to all beginning runners. It’s challenging.

yirara

If you don't have POTS (does your HR go down when you slow down?) or any medical condition then a high heartrate is not a problem, really. People seem to think our maximum heartrate should be around 220-age, but that's just not true. This simple formular is only really valid for roughly 65% of all people, taking into account that those 65% also include plus/minus 12. So if you're 41 these 65% would cover a heartrate of 167 to 191, a huge range! And then 35% of all people still have a higher or lower one, and it's normal.*

But yes, you should run slowly. That you ended up winded and with pain in your legs is not good. Go slower, a lot slower. May I suggest you forget about the heartrate for now but chose a running pace at which you can still talk? If you can't you're still going to fast. Running slower than you walk? That's no problem at all as running is massively more strenuous than walking. By running at the speed that you walk you're already spending more than twice as much energy! Your body needs to get used to that.

Oh, and well done for starting!

* assumed normal distribution and 1st.dev of 12.

heybales

You don't have to advance in the program as fast as it suggests to go.

Go slower running, and go slower by not going to next level until it feels better where you are at.

Ditto's to above about talking pace.

Perhaps only go up to next interval level when your run-time can be at pace you want but able to talk that sentence or two.

Watch HR only to see it lower as you get fitter doing the same pace or better.

Jthanmyfitnesspal

I had to go really slow to keep from overtaxing myself as well. HR is a good indicator or that, although I mine never went over about 175BPM, and even then I had to stop and walk a bit. It took a year for my body to acclimate to jogging, and I had been a regular cyclist, swimmer, rollerblader, and elliptical trainer before then.

I took nearly 6 months going through C25K at about 10min/mile. Then, I would do the complete 5k, do some walking, and add a couple more miles. Eventually, I could run continuously for many miles and eventually did a half marathon. Now, I typically run 3-6 miles three times a week. I also spin on my spin bike and swim. For some reason, I've dropped the elliptical trainer entirely and I rarely roller blade anymore. So many fun things to do!

heybales

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

For some reason, I've dropped the elliptical trainer entirely and I rarely roller blade anymore. So many fun things to do!

Very practical experience.

As to the above - you could do those 2 fun things together and really have fun.
Please video it!

minnelizzy

I walked today for 30 mins at a brisk pace- was sweating but not winded or nearly as sore. Went almost the same distance as I did when I was mixing in the running and I kept my heart rate in check and felt overall much better 👍🏽

Jthanmyfitnesspal

minnelizzy wrote: »

I walked today for 30 mins at a brisk pace- was sweating but not winded or nearly as sore. Went almost the same distance as I did when I was mixing in the running and I kept my heart rate in check and felt overall much better 👍🏽

The C25K tells you to run 3 times a week, but it's also very helpful to do something on the non-running days, and walking is fantastic exercise. It sounds like you could repeat the early C25K workouts a number of times to work up your aerobic capacity. As I said, it took me a long time to get comfortable with running. And, if running doesn't work for you, there are so many other choices, including walking, cycling, swimming, etc.

knotmel

I completely agree with your conclusion that slow and steady is better than fast and quitting!

A couple of things that helped me with C25K:

(1) Someone gave me the advice to make the walking intervals as fast as comfortable and the running intervals as slow as possible. I kept that in mind and it helped me keep my pace reasonable for my fitness level. (I have a bad habit of sprinting off the bat, then really regretting it.)

(2) Once when rehabbing from an injury I did each DAY for one or two weeks before advancing to the next day’s workout. I waited until the current workout felt good before I advanced. It took a lot longer than designed, but I had no reason to push to go faster and every reason to avoid further injury. I will likely do this again when my current injury heals. (sigh)

Also, walking is great and I’m so glad you had a good walk today!

stoked2b

I had the same problems when I first did C25K. During the first 3 weeks it's kind of a trap to jog faster since we get to walk and recover. But once I got to the 8 to 10 minute continuous there was no way I could finish without slowing down. I got a HR monitor and used HR to pace myself to around 90% max. Then I was able to do the long one - W5D3 20 minute run and eventually finish the program.

yirara

Oh yes, when I first did C25K I actually ran faster than I ever run now (short intervals excluded). It was totally not sustainable, and once I got to running 10 minutes straight things went *kitten*

AnnPT77

yirara wrote: »

If you don't have POTS (does your HR go down when you slow down?) or any medical condition then a high heartrate is not a problem, really. People seem to think our maximum heartrate should be around 220-age, but that's just not true. This simple formular is only really valid for roughly 65% of all people, taking into account that those 65% also include plus/minus 12. So if you're 41 these 65% would cover a heartrate of 167 to 191, a huge range! And then 35% of all people still have a higher or lower one, and it's normal.*

But yes, you should run slowly. That you ended up winded and with pain in your legs is not good. Go slower, a lot slower. May I suggest you forget about the heartrate for now but chose a running pace at which you can still talk? If you can't you're still going to fast. Running slower than you walk? That's no problem at all as running is massively more strenuous than walking. By running at the speed that you walk you're already spending more than twice as much energy! Your body needs to get used to that.

Oh, and well done for starting!

* assumed normal distribution and 1st.dev of 12.

I feel like this post (above) bears repeating: If someone's heart rate is up near 100% (based on the age algorithms for max), and there are no other symptoms, and it stays at/near 100% for a long time (like 10 minutes or more), especially if they're relatively new to exercise . . . it seems likely that they may be one of the people for whom the age-based estimates are too low.

Max heart rate is more about genetics, not much about fitness. But even elite athletes can't hold 100% max or near to it, for very long. For example:

Since your max heart rate is attained by the most strenuous level of physical exertion your body is capable of, it is only sustainable for very short periods of time. For the average person, this likely falls somewhere between 10 seconds and 1 minute.

Very good athletes can often perform at their max HR for 2 minutes or so, while the world’s best may be able to for 3-4 minutes.

That's from an article from Whoop, the folks who make heart rate monitoring fitness tracking devices. I'm not affiliated with them, don't even have one of their devices, but it was the most succinct statement of the idea (that I'd learned about as part of my rowing-coaching certification education) that I found quickly on the web.

It's from here: https://www.whoop.com/thelocker/calculating-max-heart-rate/

My HRmax should be 154, based on 220-age, since I'm 66. In reality, it's more like 180 (sports tested). At 154bpm, I can still speak in short sentences, and can sustain that effort level for several minutes. My tested max would suggest 154 is around 85%, right around anaerobic threshold, which is reasonably consistent with the "short-sentences" rate of perceived exertion (RPE).

If I trained with the assumption that my HRmax was 154, I'd be seriously undertraining.

No one should be pushing for HRmax when new to exercise, especially without having gotten medical clearance first for that intensity. But if you hit a higher than expected number, feel fine, don't have the signs that you're at a very high RPE, it's probable that you're one of the pretty-common folks whose HRmax is higher than the age estimate.

When in even the slightest doubt, check in with your doctor. When new to exercise, keep your pace/perceived exertion on the low side, to build base fitness. That's the best path to fitness progress, not pushing the maximum exertion you can possibly achieve.

yirara

Here's a totally failed 10 mile race. It stormed. Out was ok, kind of as the storm was blowing my legs away. Back was... interesting. Drops in HR were either short stops or moments were the wind subsided a bit. If this was anywhere near my maxHR then I'd not be an adult yet. I did this with over 40.

dewd2

Just a quick comment on this older thread.... Depending on how you measured your heart rate it could be wildly inaccurate. Watch based sensors can be very unrealistic. My super expensive watch often tells me my HR is way higher than it actually is. If I want reliable numbers I wear a chest strap.

BrianSharpe

Slow down and then slow down some more. I'm a big fan of running on perceived effort (especially if you haven't really established your zones yet (I'm the same age as AnnPT77 and my max HR after over a decade of running, is quite a bit higher than the 220 - your age model). If you're relatively new to running don't worry about speed focus on building endurance and taking the time to allow for the physiological adaptations that happen. Most of your runs (80%) should be at a pace that allows you to speak in full sentences.

westrich20940

I want to just add --- for you -- this is true for ALL runners. Even runners who are training for marathons are running like 75% of their runs at an 'easy'/slow pace. Running for longer mileage or longer time at a slower pace will usually always be a better way to train.

When I first started getting back into running after some years of being out of it --- I'd run for like 30 seconds and my heart rate would be 180 and I'd have to walk again. Now I can maintain a heart rate of like 160 for the duration of my runs (up to 6-7 miles)....it'll creep up if I'm going up hill and I might have to stop for a sec but generally it's so much better.

Respiratory and cardiovascular health comes along just like your running does so do not feel bad at all or call yourself 'slow' or a 'turtle'. It doesn't matter as long as the miles get in!