Is my heart rate too high when exercising?

jaybird90
jaybird90 Posts: 18
in Fitness and Exercise
I recently got my first heart rate monitor watch - a Polar FT4 - and used it for the first time at the gym yesterday. It was a fairly short workout in total but from the results my heart rate seems to be high, I will probably ask a doctor about it soon if this keeps up but people here seem to be quite clued up about this sort of thing so any opinions would be great!

I did 20 minutes on the cross trainer, max effort with very high resistance so I was finding it hard but not I'm-going-to-faint kind of hard, I felt pretty good afterwards. But my heart rate was average 179 and max 197, my max heart rate should be 198 as I am 22 years old. I guess I am fairly fit as I have been exercising regularly for over a year now and usually go pretty hard at it at the gym! I then did 15 mins weights and my heart rate seemed to be more normal average 140 max 160.

So really I am just curious - am I working too hard? Does this indicate any health issues or am I just more fit than I thought? Any help would be appreciated!

Thank you!
«1

Replies

  • GinoBMW
    GinoBMW Posts: 1
    I am not an expert by any stretch but have found that following the heart rate zones (60%-70% fat burn, 70%-80% cardio, 90%-100 anaerobic) for working out really helps target specific workout goals. There are are a few sites on the web that will describe each workout zone... Here is a sample site that describes the zones http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm
  • cleotherio
    cleotherio Posts: 712 Member
    I am not an expert by any stretch but have found that following the heart rate zones (60%-70% fat burn, 70%-80% cardio, 90%-100 anaerobic) for working out really helps target specific workout goals. There are are a few sites on the web that will describe each workout zone... Here is a sample site that describes the zones http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

    I don't buy that. It totally depends on the person. I'm 42. My "max" according to the standard formula is 178. I'm in above average shape and I often get into the 170s when I'm going intense cardio or intervals. If I'm below 160, I don't feel like I'm working hard. 160 is 90% of my "max".
  • Yogi_Carl
    Yogi_Carl Posts: 1,906 Member
    Same here - at the age of 52, my maximum heart rate is supposed to be around 168, but my jogging rate is around 150 and if I do kettlebell it can reach around 160 where I still feel comfortably "working out".

    85% of that would give me 142 bpm - well that's a fast walk for me! My resting heart rate is ~ 36.

    I have come to consider that the "aerobic zone" is an individual figure where you are best listening to your need for breath. If you are going anaerobic that is your body tellihg you to slow down a touch. If you are not going fast enough - I don't know about you but I tend to get bored with the pace, so maybe (unless you are building an aerobic foundation so going slow deliberately) it is time to quicken the pace.

    That's my take on it.
  • Mokey41
    Mokey41 Posts: 5,769 Member
    Do you feel really light headed? See black spots? Wavy lines? Fall over dead? If not then don't worry about it. I'm a 55 year old runner and my normal heart rate will running is in the high 150's and low 160's. According to the charts I'll fall over dead at 165 yet I can sprint into the 180's and I'm still here to tell about it.
  • jaybird90
    jaybird90 Posts: 18
    Thank you all for your replies! It is really helpful knowing other people are having the same issue - I guess it is not a one size fits all formula :) I was feeling a bit out of breath while on the cross trainer but that's just how I exercise - just like some of you have said I don't feel like I'm working hard enough when I'm at a comfortable pace.

    I wondered if maybe this is restricting my weight loss though if I'm working in the anaerobic zone too much of the time rather than the fat-loss zone.. the whole thing confuses me!!
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Eh, I'm 28, and mine stays anywhere from 178-194 after the initial 'ramp-up'. That said, I am one of those "if you don't feel like you could die, you aren't pushing hard enough" kind of people. I was also a smoker for about 14 years until I quit about three months ago.
  • SparkleShine
    SparkleShine Posts: 2,001 Member
    I am not an expert by any stretch but have found that following the heart rate zones (60%-70% fat burn, 70%-80% cardio, 90%-100 anaerobic) for working out really helps target specific workout goals. There are are a few sites on the web that will describe each workout zone... Here is a sample site that describes the zones http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

    I don't buy that. It totally depends on the person. I'm 42. My "max" according to the standard formula is 178. I'm in above average shape and I often get into the 170s when I'm going intense cardio or intervals. If I'm below 160, I don't feel like I'm working hard. 160 is 90% of my "max".

    This is me also. I'm 42 as well. My average is usually the high 150's with peaks of 175-180
  • nguk123
    nguk123 Posts: 223
    >>I wondered if maybe this is restricting my weight loss though if I'm working
    >>in the anaerobic zone too much of the time rather than
    >>the fat-loss zone.. the whole thing confuses me!!

    The so called zones are a complete distraction. At the end of the day it's a question of what (healthy) calorie deficit you run. The way cardio works is intenstity x duration = total calorie burn.

    high intensity will give you a greater calorie burn for any given duration over a lower intensity... but can you sustain it for similar durations when they might be significant. A sprint doesnt last as long as a marathon.

    I personally like variety. I do most of my cardio at a medium intensity for a medium duration (30-40min for me) which gives me moderate calorie burn. I have typically 1 day a week where I do high intensity intervals , so the time of the high intensity is much reduced , because the duration is shorter, it is fairly comparable in total calorie burn to a 'moderate day'. I also do a longer lower intensity day, typically the intensity isnt all that much lower than moderate so it tends to be my biggest overall calorie burn. (though it is a greater time commitment to run for an hour or more)

    Hope that helped to give you some things to consider.
  • JustPeachy044
    JustPeachy044 Posts: 770 Member
    At my group fitness class, the coaches recommend we aim for 80-90% max heart rate during cardio ('yellow zone'), with spikes into 90-100%('red zone'). They don't want us to stay there in the red, they say "work smarter not harder". So I aim for those percentages, my HRM will tell me what percentage of the max I am in currently as well as afterwards give me an average and maximum. I like seeing the average mid-80%ile.

    I've been over 100% before, and it hasn't killed me yet...I kinda enjoy the endorphin rush that comes with it!
  • Troll
    Troll Posts: 922 Member
    Eh. im 22 and my max is around 204bpm, average when working hard about 197. Even after years of work, my restinf heart rate is around 75-85bpm.

    then again, i have an arrhythmia. so tske what you want from it.
  • SPNLuver83
    SPNLuver83 Posts: 2,050 Member
    You're fine. The "zones" are bs. You burn the most fat, and the most calories, by working out at an intense rate. If you don't feel dizzy or like you are going to puke then I would not worry!

    Just make sure that when working out at an intense rate you listen to your body when it cues you to slow down. If you are on the stairmaster and slumped over the bars struggling with each step, its time to take it down a notch, or a couple notches lol.
  • kemdawson
    kemdawson Posts: 15
    Also as you train and get in better shape, your heart rate will begin to be lower while you are still working out at the higher intensity levels. I do extended cardio workouts all the time, up to 90 minutes straight or more, with jogging, biking,elliptical and dance. Now that I've been wearing a HRM most workouts, I've realized it more of course. In the long run this is good because you will still burn more calories quicker. I'm in my fifties also, and feel better than ever :))
  • TrailRunner61
    TrailRunner61 Posts: 2,505 Member
    Everyone is different.. We are all different sizes, ages, dif. degrees of health, etc. For me, I lost 40lbs by walking alone, between Jan and May. I now run 5 or so miles every other day but I'm not losing tummy fat or measuring smaller like I did when I walked. Sooo I think I need to slow down and stay into my fat burning range more often, which for me is from 111 to 145. Yeah I'm kind of old. lol If I get my pulse over 165, I start to get dizzy, etc., but I'm also on meds to keep my heart rate down. Ugh. Anyway...
    I would just listen to your body. If you get nauseous, gasp for air, etc., slow down. If not, I'm sure you're fine. Just make sure you keep doing something! You'll do fine!

    ETA: Also, when I first started out, I'd walk 20 feet and my pulse would shoot up to 160. Now that I'm healthier & more fit, it takes 20 minutes to get it up to 125! You have to push yourself some, but pay attention to your body and you'll know when you're overdoing it.

    Good luck!
  • misterperversion
    misterperversion Posts: 9 Member
    bump
  • vorgas
    vorgas Posts: 741 Member
    The most common calculation used to determine max rate (220 - age) is commonly attributed to two guys on a plane looking at a sample of less than 15 people. In addition, none of those people were being tested for max heart rate, but something else. They just needed a starting point for one of their topics. It is well known that this has an error of +-20 bpm or more.
    http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong

    A more accurate formula (208 - (0.7 × age)) was created in 2001 and has an error of +-10 bpm.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153730
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate

    But nothing beats finding out for yourself. A great way is to use the Foster Submax HR Test. The alternative involves actually pushing yourself to max under a doctor's supervision (it can be very dangerous).
    http://heartzones.com/_pdf/Workout-of-the-Month-August-2007.pdf

    Your heart rate while working out is directly related to your VO2 Max. As you increase your ability to suck in and process oxygen, your heart rate at a given exertion level will go down. For this reason it's not accurate to compare heart rates at exercises even with others of the same age. If you don't know your VO2 Max, it's pretty much meaningless.
    http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/vo2max-calculator.aspx

    Hope that helps
  • 2pupsmama
    2pupsmama Posts: 77
    bump
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    How hard you work during cardio depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Different zones target different training effects, and no, the zones are not BS.

    If all you are doing is trying to burn calories then it doesn't really matter. If you are trying to build aerobic fitness it matters a lot.
  • sabineliebling
    sabineliebling Posts: 32
    This is all very interesting, but it seems like no one agrees!

    I just got my first HRM, and while I'm mostly interested in for the calories burned information, I was a little concerned when working out today. I do Turbo Fire, and my average was like 190, with peaks into the low 200's during the high intensity fire drills. According to all the target and max heart rate calculators out there my heart should have like, burst out of my body or something. My max is supposed to be in the 180's? I'm 32 and work out 6 days a week. I have only been working out this hard though for 6 months, so I'm not super fit or anything, at least not yet. :)

    Anyway, "max" heart rate seems like a pretty meaningless term if I can blow way past it without any harm. I was out of breath after the fire drill, but that is an anaerobic activity. The rest of the workout I am definitely working out at a high intensity, but no dizziness, vomiting, black spots, etc.
  • nguk123
    nguk123 Posts: 223
    Anyway, "max" heart rate seems like a pretty meaningless term if I can blow way past it without any harm.

    In your case it means your max is underrestimated. You are a statistically outlier from the sample from which the statistic had been derived. If you want to determine a more personalized 'max'.... that could be done, but you probably wouldn't enjoy the process....
  • jevanswslife
    jevanswslife Posts: 2
    When I first started working out, my heart rate would get up to about 160-168 max. I would check it severa times throughout the 47 minutes in which I would be completing my 5K walk/run. I'm 52 and continuing to lose weight. In fact, since September, I have lost 50 pounds. Today while working out, I could not get my heart rate up past 120, regardless of how hard I pushed it. I was initially curious about this but then I thought it could be contributed to the continued workouts and the weight reduction.

    I am curious to know if as a person loses weight does his heart rate get better as he becomes more fit? Any replies would be appreciated.
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    I am curious to know if as a person loses weight does his heart rate get better as he becomes more fit? Any replies would be appreciated.
    as you become more aerobically fit your heart gets larger and stronger and has a larger stroke volume with each beat. Additionally, your blood volume increases. The result is your heart no longer has to beat as fast to get the necessary oxygen to the working muscles.

    If you stop working out it all goes away.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    The most common calculation used to determine max rate (220 - age) is commonly attributed to two guys on a plane looking at a sample of less than 15 people. In addition, none of those people were being tested for max heart rate, but something else. They just needed a starting point for one of their topics. It is well known that this has an error of +-20 bpm or more.
    http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-reasons-220-age-plain-wrong

    A more accurate formula (208 - (0.7 × age)) was created in 2001 and has an error of +-10 bpm.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153730
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate

    But nothing beats finding out for yourself. A great way is to use the Foster Submax HR Test. The alternative involves actually pushing yourself to max under a doctor's supervision (it can be very dangerous).
    http://heartzones.com/_pdf/Workout-of-the-Month-August-2007.pdf

    Your heart rate while working out is directly related to your VO2 Max. As you increase your ability to suck in and process oxygen, your heart rate at a given exertion level will go down. For this reason it's not accurate to compare heart rates at exercises even with others of the same age. If you don't know your VO2 Max, it's pretty much meaningless.
    http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2max.htm
    http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exercise/calculators/vo2max-calculator.aspx

    Hope that helps

    The so-called "more accurate" formula is only different from the supposedly "made up" formula by about 2-5 bpm, which is really insignificant.

    The problem is not with the "accuracy" of the formulae when you consider the mean (see above), but with the standard of error (which is pretty much the same for the "new and improved" formula as for the "old and busted" forumula. An SEE of = or - 10 bpm means you will see a wide range of "normal" -- hence the different numbers that people report.

    It is compounded by the fact that, in order to profit from marketing "zone training", groups from machine manufacturers, HRM manufacturers and self-appointed "fitness experts", ignore the existence of the SEE and pound away at the "zones", based not only on the erroneous 220-age formula, but also ignore the effect of resting heart rate.

    The result: mass confusion. I've been responding to emails like the OP for over 20 years--since HRMs were first mass marketed--and it hasn't gotten any better.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    How hard you work during cardio depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Different zones target different training effects, and no, the zones are not BS.

    If all you are doing is trying to burn calories then it doesn't really matter. If you are trying to build aerobic fitness it matters a lot.

    I agree: it's not the "zones" that are BS. It's the random assignment of heart rates to those "zones" that is misleading.

    Working at "easy", "medium" and "hard" zones will definitely yield different (and complementary) results in training. The tricky part is determining the individual's heart rates that correspond to those zones.

    One of the biggest misunderstandings in fitness is the idea that HRMs are "plug and play" devices. To be used most effectively, they either require some baseline knowledge of exercise physiology or a period of intelligent observation.
  • CalvinLosingIt
    CalvinLosingIt Posts: 88 Member
    Above advice by Vorgas is great. Just don't overdo it, and you will be fine.
  • kdub67
    kdub67 Posts: 181 Member
    I am not an expert by any stretch but have found that following the heart rate zones (60%-70% fat burn, 70%-80% cardio, 90%-100 anaerobic) for working out really helps target specific workout goals. There are are a few sites on the web that will describe each workout zone... Here is a sample site that describes the zones http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

    I don't buy that. It totally depends on the person. I'm 42. My "max" according to the standard formula is 178. I'm in above average shape and I often get into the 170s when I'm going intense cardio or intervals. If I'm below 160, I don't feel like I'm working hard. 160 is 90% of my "max".

    I don't buy it either. I'm 45 so my max would be 175 and 90% would be 158...I'm consistantly in the 95% range when I do strenuous exercise. I've wondered the same thing, though...should I dial it back a bit? Am I going "too high?"
  • angie13xx
    angie13xx Posts: 29 Member
    How about a heart rate of 246? at rest I'm around 90-100 bpm
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    I am not an expert by any stretch but have found that following the heart rate zones (60%-70% fat burn, 70%-80% cardio, 90%-100 anaerobic) for working out really helps target specific workout goals. There are are a few sites on the web that will describe each workout zone... Here is a sample site that describes the zones http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm

    Zone training has long been debunked. OP, a general rule of thumb for HR max is 220 minus your age. So, due to the intensity of your efforts, you are getting to your projected max. I'm not postive but I believe your HRM has a fitness test function where you can walk through it and find a more specific max for you. Bottom line is, more intensity burns more calories overall. That can be a good thing. My max is about 165 and during HIIT or Metabolic Weight Complexes I get it there.
  • scottdeeby
    scottdeeby Posts: 95 Member
    How hard you work during cardio depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Different zones target different training effects, and no, the zones are not BS.

    If all you are doing is trying to burn calories then it doesn't really matter. If you are trying to build aerobic fitness it matters a lot.

    I agree with this.

    For me, the best thing a heart rate monitor does is slow me down when I am targeting the aerobic zones (let's say zone 2). The HRM tells me when I've drifted up to the 'junk miles' effort of zone 3.

    If you "feel the burn" while exercising, that's lactic acid that you feel in your muscles caused by the anaerobic breakdown of glycogen, your muscle's biggest energy store.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    There is a huge range of heartrates for different people - my brother (5 years older) comfortably trains at a much higher rate than I can tolerate. 220 minus your age is just a guideline. If you are serious about it you can do a fitness test to determine what your max attainable heartrate really is. But beware - you would be pushing yourself to the limit, not a good idea unless you are used to intense exercise.

    Heartrate zone training is not BS! It all depends on your goals. Don't forget that the idea of HRMs to measure your heartrate and not calories. If you are training for endurance sports then low intensity (aerobic) / long duration training is very beneficial, if you are training for a sprint event you would be focussed on high intensity / short duration.
  • squirrelzzrule22
    squirrelzzrule22 Posts: 640 Member
    When I was 14 our gym class made us wear all these rusty old HRM's that strapped around your body for a class to teach us about cardio fitness. The whole time my HR was OFF THE CHARTS and my nervous gym teacher thought I was dying or ill or on weird medication. My doctor listens to my heart and takes BP every year so even though I was pretty confident I wasn't dying it made me nervous. Turns out my heart rate was elevated because I'm a bit of a hypochondriac and grossed out by the inner workings of the human body and the idea of the heart rate monitor freaked me out so much that my heart just was beating really fast (over 100, close to 130) just because I was scared.

    Still am, so I don't use them! haha.

    I'm sure that's not your issue, just what I thought of when I saw this thread. If you feel okay, I reckon you are okay. Look at major weight loss shows like biggest loser or something where morbidly obese people are tossed into intense training regimens. I'm sure their hearts are beating out of control and they are MUCH less healthy than you and no one is dropping dead! But if you're nervous a cardiologist can give you one of those stress test things.

Categories