Max Heart Rate

Jennisin1

From everything I have seen.... Max Heart Rate should be 220-Age (so in my case that would be 187). I have a HRM and I NEVER get even close. I have never broken 160 even running flat out till I couldn't catch a breath... busting my ovaries doing Insanity. As a result, it seems like I never burn as many calories as you would expect (and not even close to what MFP says)

am I deficient... and does that mean I am really not burning a lot of calories?

and no, I am not an athlete

LReneeWalker

Mine is that high just watching tv!

Sl1ghtly

Why do you feel the need to increase your heart rate to this extent?

Jennisin1

I don't feel the "need" to increase it to that level.. it is just something that I noticed and wondered if that was the reason for my disappointing calorie burns. It seems I can walk jsut a few minutes more and burn nearly the same calories as running for a slightly shorter period.

Makes me wonder if my HR being abnormally low "tells" the HRM I am not putting "maximum" effort into my physical activites which in turn is leading to lower caloric burns.

Colbyandsage

bumping so I can follow

akgrl1020

What kind of HRM are you using?

Gutter19

I think it is supposed to be (220-Age) * .9 actually...so that will get you a little closer

Jennisin1

Polar FT7

Destinie589

As I have lost weight and become more fit I don't burn as many nor does my heart rate get as high as it used to. So maybe you are in excellent shape. But I understand your frustration. I love lowering my weight in my HRM watch but I hate it at the same time because I know I won't burn as many as I did at the previous weights.

misssarahd

Can you not change your max heart rate on your HRM so it knows when your going all out & alters your calories burnt accordingly?

Jennisin1

sooo not in excellent shape... I have been on this journey for 45 days after laying out birthing two babies the last couple of years.... I could maybe understand if I was an athlete.. but yeah.. not so much

minnesota_deere

From everything I have seen.... Max Heart Rate should be 220-Age (so in my case that would be 187). I have a HRM and I NEVER get even close. I have never broken 160 even running flat out till I couldn't catch a breath... busting my ovaries doing Insanity. As a result, it seems like I never burn as many calories as you would expect (and not even close to what MFP says)

am I deficient... and does that mean I am really not burning a lot of calories?

and no, I am not an athlete

do more research, when your settings are input correctly on your HRM you should have a max and a minimum HR auto set for who you are, i can assure you its about 155 max hr for female before the bells go off on the HRM. your best fat calorie burn is typically around 115HR however i find this to be very unproductive. so i average my HR at about 145-150, my wife is the same HR. however the calorie burn is about 30% less for women compared to man. at least this is what we have concluded on our own experiment, if we both carry the same HR at 145 she burns 9 calories per minute and i burn 16 cals.

janeinspain

You just need some time to get your body used to the exercise. A couple of times, during a circuit, I went over 200 beets (when my max is 193, as my Polar FP7 says) and I felt my heart ache a little afterwards. So it's not good to take in more than you can handle.

Just keep training and your body will ask for more when it's ready.

jrdennis13

It may just mean your in shape. And not overweight. Bodyweight plays a factor. Ideally, you rarely would ever need to train beyond your maximum HR. To improve endurance, you would only need to be in the 90% range of you MHR. Training at max or beyond would only be "necessary" in HIIT exercises. and even then it would only be very extremely short periods of time. Typically (45 seconds to a 1 minute). Not reaching your MHR just means you could last a long time during cardio before having to stop. 4 months ago, I could easily hit 175-180 (my MHR is 185), but I was extremely out of shape and overweight (264 pound, male). I"ve lost 36 pounds since then and now my THR for cardio is in the 138-148 range during a typical 6-8 mile run. And usually won't exceed 150 until roughly the last mile. Even when I pick up the pace, say at a steady 8:30 min mile pace, I won't break 160 until well into the last mile.

Sl1ghtly

I don't feel the "need" to increase it to that level.. it is just something that I noticed and wondered if that was the reason for my disappointing calorie burns. It seems I can walk jsut a few minutes more and burn nearly the same calories as running for a slightly shorter period.

Makes me wonder if my HR being abnormally low "tells" the HRM I am not putting "maximum" effort into my physical activites which in turn is leading to lower caloric burns.

I see. I think its best to view excersize as a route to fitness, and diet the flab off.

anubis609

Depends on your resting HR. "Normal" resting HR, by hospital standards, is 60 - 100 bpm. If you are consistently lower than 60 bpm, you MAY have a lower max HR. But just because you're not hitting the absolute max, doesn't mean you are deficient in any way. As long as your HR is elevated through physical exertion, your body will be burning calories faster.

Also, usually those who are at a level of fitness to produce an exorbitant amount of calorie burns are generally those that don't need to burn that much in the first place, for weight loss anyway, namely, performance athletes.

Toddrific

Supposedly my maximum heart rate is like 174-186...
If I go over 155 I feel like I'm going to pass out =P

Isn't training supposed to be at like 70-80% of maximum?

jrdennis13

As I have lost weight and become more fit I don't burn as many nor does my heart rate get as high as it used to. So maybe you are in excellent shape. But I understand your frustration. I love lowering my weight in my HRM watch but I hate it at the same time because I know I won't burn as many as I did at the previous weights.

Should mention this too. If you're losing weight, you'll burn less calories during exercise. At 264 for one hour of cardio I would typically burn 1100-1200 calories. at 228 in one hour, I'll only get to about 900-1000.

Chipmaniac

Max heart rate is quite variable among individuals and can be different for different activities. For instance, your max heart rate while swimming will be about 10 beats lower then say running or walking. This is due to the fact that the water pressure actually increases the efficiency of your heart by pushing on your circulatory system and preventing blood from pooling in extremities.

The 220-age method has been know to be error-prone. In may be way off in your case. The only way to know for sure is to have a stress test conducted by a doctor.

I would approach the calories burned stated by your Polar with skepticism anyway. There are many variables that affect heart rate that the receiver cannot know about and thus does not factor into its calculations. For instance, now that I'm relatively fit, I have trouble getting my heart rate up with simple walking at a fast pace, even if I set the incline on a treadmill very high. The amount of work (calories) I'm doing hasn't changed but my heart rate monitor is thinking I'm doing less, simply because my heart and lungs are more efficient.

chelsifina

I have an abnormally fast HR and have NO issue getting to 187. In fact, I struggle to keep mine lower than 200, and I'm 36 with a healthy BMI. My cardiologist says that people are just different, and I happen to be on this end of the spectrum. These things (220-age) is a guideline of what you should try not to exceed, for fear you might pass out, so there's no real special incentive to reach it other than to flirt with unconsciousness. The lower your heart rate, the fewer calories you burn per minute, but the greater the percentage of caloriesfromf fat rather than carbs. Work out to whatever level of exertion you enjoy, burn your calories, and don't worry about it. Happy exercising!

Sl1ghtly

Supposedly my maximum heart rate is like 174-186...
If I go over 155 I feel like I'm going to pass out =P

Isn't training supposed to be at like 70-80% of maximum?

It depends on what you're training for.

chelsifina

I have an abnormally fast HR and have NO issue getting to 187. In fact, I struggle to keep mine lower than 200, and I'm 36 with a healthy BMI. My cardiologist says that people are just different, and I happen to be on this end of the spectrum. These things (220-age) is a guideline of what you should try not to exceed, for fear you might pass out, so there's no real special incentive to reach it other than to flirt with unconsciousness. The lower your heart rate, the fewer calories you burn per minute, but the greater the percentage of calories from fat rather than carbs. Work out to whatever level of exertion you enjoy, burn your calories, and don't worry about it. Happy exercising!

joec63

If you can get your heart rate at about 70% of your max you will get a good burn however it needs to be an extended amount of time. From my arm and shoulders workout this afternoon I wore my HR monitor and 58 mins total which included warm up and cool down I expended 736 cal. Averrage rate was 130 with a max of 160. At 48 my max is around 172. Burned another 462 cal this morning doing HIIT.

_Dan_

You don't want to run over 80% max for normal training... so, you need to take that number and multiply by .8 to get the actual top number. I think the actual range you want to be in is 60% - 80% of max, 60 on the "fat burning" side, 80 on the "cardio" side, which I've never understood... if I'm doing cardio, aren't I burning fat? O.o

Chipmaniac

Ideally, you rarely would ever need to train beyond your maximum HR.

Actually, you should never be able to go beyond your maximum heart rate. If you can, then it's not your maximum.

Determining your maximum is important not for going beyond it, but for accurately calculating the various heart rate zones which are all percentages of the maximum.

jennmoore3

O.K. I did some math. 1st I use a Polar FT4. My resting is around 85-95. Walking I am in the 145 range, then running I jog and go till my HR is 177 MAX, and I want to die! I can't breathe. According to this calculation you all say, my MAX should be 168.3. I blow right by that real fast. I can only jog for 3 minutes max till my HR is 177! Maybe after I get fitter, it will go down? N ot sure.

Back to the OP. I have not a clue why you are not getting up that high.

_Dan_

From everything I have seen.... Max Heart Rate should be 220-Age (so in my case that would be 187). I have a HRM and I NEVER get even close. I have never broken 160 even running flat out till I couldn't catch a breath... busting my ovaries doing Insanity. As a result, it seems like I never burn as many calories as you would expect (and not even close to what MFP says)

am I deficient... and does that mean I am really not burning a lot of calories?

and no, I am not an athlete

187 * 0.8 = 150 That's where you want to be, especially if you're not an athlete.

BootcampJunkie

The formula for women is (226-age) and for men it's (220-age)
As long as your heart rate is getting between 50-85% of the max rate you are doing fine. Its almost imposible to get to your max heart rate and maintain it through out your entire workout. Quickest way to get your heart pumping is do exercises that get you from the ground to your feet repeatedly, like burpees, prisoner jumps, mountain climbers that sort of thing also running up stairs but skipping every second or third step, so your more lunging for each step will work your heart too. My heart rate stays at a steady 170bpm during my one hour bootcamp class. Good luck.

BrianSharpe

The 220-your age has pretty much fallen into disrepute, it's useful as a ballpark but not much else.

If your MaxHR is 187 and you were able to get up to 150 (you mentioned not hitting 160) you're into the 80% MaxHR kind of training zone - a good place to be.

The only really accurate way to determine MaxHR is a stress test.

You don't want to run over 80% max for normal training... so, you need to take that number and multiply by .8 to get the actual top number. I think the actual range you want to be in is 60% - 80% of max, 60 on the "fat burning" side, 80 on the "cardio" side, which I've never understood... if I'm doing cardio, aren't I burning fat? O.o

Forget the "fat burning" zone - the theory was that at 65% of MaxHR you're burning a higher proportion of calories from fat (somewhere around 30%) but you're still burning fewer calories. At 80% MaxHR you're still burning about 25% of your calories from fat (but it's 25 of a bigger number)

Chipmaniac

You don't want to run over 80% max for normal training... so, you need to take that number and multiply by .8 to get the actual top number. I think the actual range you want to be in is 60% - 80% of max, 60 on the "fat burning" side, 80 on the "cardio" side, which I've never understood... if I'm doing cardio, aren't I burning fat? O.o

Your instincts are correct. What people are referring to is the ratio of fuels in your fuel mixture while working out. At lower intensity, fat is metabolized more than glycogen in the muscles. The reverse is true at higher intensity. Based on this, "experts" used to encourage people to go slow to stay in the zone where fat made up a majority of their fuel mix. The problem is that this isn't the complete picture. At higher intensities you may be burning a higher percentage of glycogen and a lower percentage of fat, but you are burning more overall calories, so your fat burn is still higher. Additionally, you are getting the benefit of more calories burned in a shorter amount of time and the ancillary health benefits of cardio capacity.

Chipmaniac

O.K. I did some math. 1st I use a Polar FT4. My resting is around 85-95. Walking I am in the 145 range, then running I jog and go till my HR is 177 MAX, and I want to die! I can't breathe. According to this calculation you all say, my MAX should be 168.3. I blow right by that real fast. I can only jog for 3 minutes max till my HR is 177! Maybe after I get fitter, it will go down? N ot sure.

Back to the OP. I have not a clue why you are not getting up that high.

Your max heart rate should always be the maximum rate your heart can achieve at 100% effort. If you can get your heart to 177, then your max heart rate is AT LEAST 177 and maybe a little more. This number will only be affected by two things over time: 1. Age 2. Fitness. As you age, you theoretically lose a beat a minute off of your maximum heart rate for every year. Additionally, if you become extremely fit your maximum heart rate can also be altered a little bit.

In your case, you can forget about the 220 - age formula because you've proven that it is incorrect. Use 177 as your max in all calculations.

In my case, the 220 - age says that my max should be 180. I've achieved 175 when I've exercised at my highest intensity. So, 180 might actually be accurate for me at this point in my life.