Is my heart rate too high when exercising?

scottb81

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

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

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

Above advice by Vorgas is great. Just don't overdo it, and you will be fine.

kdub67

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

How about a heart rate of 246? at rest I'm around 90-100 bpm

mmapags

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

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

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

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.

ckmama

The more I workout the harder it is to get my heart rate to stay between 130-150.

On a side note, My sister tried to use my Polar HRM while walking one day and it never would pick up her heart rate and when it did it was really high. She never exercises and decided to stop at that point. LOL>

Hearts_2015

>>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.

shawnap40

I am 41 and when I excersice my heart rate goes to 197 and I end up with a headache after..

SingingSingleTracker

Zone training has long been debunked.

I would be curious if you could qualify that with the research that says zone training has long been debunked?

Azdak

Zone training has long been debunked.

I would be curious if you could qualify that with the research that says zone training has long been debunked?

I would assume the reference was to the "fat burning zone".