Heart Rate Question

Options
happycauseIride
happycauseIride Posts: 536 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I'm not sure the right way to ask this question without stumbling, so hang with me here for a second.

I have been exercising for a year. Mostly walking, some running and when I do lifting I do squats, push ups, lunges and work with dumb bells, all at home. I work out 6 days a week. The last couple weeks I have added in some Firm Aerobics videos.

38 yo female, 5'6", CW 218.

I wear a HRM, but not all the time. I have a Polar FT7. I realize that as one exercises, over time they get healthier and the heart doesn't have to work as hard as it did before. But I think mine has gone to the extreme.

I have no idea where I started a year ago. I know I was winded all the time and felt like crap, but I never check a resting HR so I don't have anything to cross reference. But today I have a resting HR of 43. That is correct, 43. This morning I did a 30 minute Firm video, mostly sculpting, not a lot a high impact, and then went on a 3 mile walk. During the video, at the most my HR was 135 and that was when we were working lower body. We were doing lunges and biceps and I was holding 10 lb dumbbells.

Then I went for my walk. Now I walk almost every day and I walk 3 miles every day. I walked 3 miles in 47 minutes, 3.9 mph, and the highest my HR got was 106! Once I saw it at only 89. I do run a little but I didn't today. At the most I can run 1.5 miles at a time. When I run, my HR gets as high as 150. It comes right back down again when I walk again.

So this morning I exercised for 90 minutes, but only burned 360 calories. Really? I work hard. I sweat when I'm exercising, I get a little winded, I have fatigued muscles and soreness later on. Am I just getting so healthy that that is all I'm burning? That just does not seem right for the amount of work I do. But my HR seems really, really low to me. What do you think?

Replies

  • Lisa_Rhodes
    Lisa_Rhodes Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    Hmmm... I'm no expert but I was looking into heart rates before, it did state that a lot of athletes have low resting heart rates around the range you said. One time after I did a walk/jog which kicked my butt, I noticed my resting heart rate afterwards was a 54. I know when I was getting into the routine of exercising that the amount burned would go down unless I pushed myself harder than before. Like you said, your body is getting in better shape and able to handle exercising better... sometimes just gotta push more :wink:
  • Lisa_Rhodes
    Lisa_Rhodes Posts: 263 Member
    Options
    Here's a link I found if it's more helpful :smile:


    http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/qt/Resting-Heart-Rate.htm
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    Nothing you experienced is abnormal as long as you don't have some sort of heart condition.

    Your resting heart rate is 43: Mine is 38.

    Your walking heart rate is around 90 to 100. Mine is < 80 except when going uphill.

    Welcome to being physically fit.

    As for the 90 min calorie burn, it looks low. My guess is that you burned around 300 cal walking. The stuff you did during the video is not really suited for a HR monitor so no idea how much you burned there.
  • happycauseIride
    happycauseIride Posts: 536 Member
    Options
    Thank you both for the input. That is what I was afraid of. I wouldn't consider myself an athlete, but that doesn't mean that my heart doesn't. I feel great, so I know there is nothing to worry about there.

    I guess I just have to work harder now. Super! :)
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    Physical fitness is independent of weight to a large degree and is arguably more important than the weight on the scale or even amount of bodyfat. The good thing is that having achieved fitness, losing weight becomes easier as you can really increase the calorie burns if you choose to by simply working harder and longer which is what the fitness enables you to do.

    It looks like you are doing everything right. Great job.
  • Melo1966
    Melo1966 Posts: 881 Member
    Options
    It is not always about physical fitness. I have an extreme low resting heart rate 30's and am still 50+ overweight and can only run a 12 minute mile for no more than 20 minutes so I am not physically fit as I was when I was younger. I have to be moving to get my heart rate to 50 but running at a hard pace mine can become 150. My mother had this condition so her doctor had her get a pace maker and set her resting to 60. The condition is called Bradycardia. Do you ever feel lightheaded and/or tired alot? Hypothyroidism can cause a low resting heart rate too. I don't have a doctor so have not been tested. If you can see a doctor you can have it monitored and have a blood test done.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    Options
    Nothing you experienced is abnormal as long as you don't have some sort of heart condition.

    Your resting heart rate is 43: Mine is 38.

    Your walking heart rate is around 90 to 100. Mine is < 80 except when going uphill.

    Welcome to being physically fit.

    As for the 90 min calorie burn, it looks low. My guess is that you burned around 300 cal walking. The stuff you did during the video is not really suited for a HR monitor so no idea how much you burned there.

    I'm going to piggyback on your comments a little.

    I agree there is nothing "abnormal" about the heart rate numbers as the OP described. What many people don't realize is that walking--even at speeds that many people would find "brisk", is a relatively low-intensity exercise. Walking 4 mph is an intensity of about 4 METs. A reasonably fit person under 45 should have a max aerobic fitness level of 12 METs or higher. That would make walking 4.0 mph only 33% of VO2 max, which is not very hard.

    This is corroborated by the fact that HR goes up to 150 when running. That would make sense since running--even at a 12 min/mile pace--is about 75% harder than walking 4 mph. And that heart rate would put you at roughly 75%-80% of your HR reserve--which also matches the duration of effort you describe.
  • happycauseIride
    happycauseIride Posts: 536 Member
    Options


    I agree there is nothing "abnormal" about the heart rate numbers as the OP described. What many people don't realize is that walking--even at speeds that many people would find "brisk", is a relatively low-intensity exercise. Walking 4 mph is an intensity of about 4 METs. A reasonably fit person under 45 should have a max aerobic fitness level of 12 METs or higher. That would make walking 4.0 mph only 33% of VO2 max, which is not very hard.

    This is corroborated by the fact that HR goes up to 150 when running. That would make sense since running--even at a 12 min/mile pace--is about 75% harder than walking 4 mph. And that heart rate would put you at roughly 75%-80% of your HR reserve--which also matches the duration of effort you describe.

    This makes complete sense so I tested it this morning.

    Yesterday I walked 3 miles, outside on the highway. It's flatter than flat here so there are no hills, there was no wind and I was on pavement. 3.9 mph and my HR topped out at 106. Usually that 3 miles, my HRM says I burn about 270 calories in that 3 miles so I added The Firm Video.

    Today I stayed home on my treadmill. I walked 3.6 miles, increased the incline to 5, held 3 lb weights in my hands and walked 3.7-3.8 mph. HR stayed between 125-135 most of the time. Calorie burn today was 420 in 60 minutes.

    So I guess if I want a better burn, I have to walk on the treadmill where I can get a better work out and save the running for outside on the highway.

Categories