Heart rate.

Options
kim_m_kk
kim_m_kk Posts: 61 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I am a 240 lb 5ft 6 in 40 year old woman. I have just started exercising. Been to the gym for the first time in 20 years the last few weeks. Sometimes on the treadmill my heart rate get to 160 or 170 but I don't feel like I am working that hard. It it dangerous to push your heart rate that high? Do I just need to wait for fitness to improve and keep my heart rate closer to 144?
«1

Replies

  • psychofairy25
    psychofairy25 Posts: 128 Member
    Options
    I am no expert but that is fairly close to were i started. 170 is a good range to be in on a workout, now if you start to range higher than 200 then id start pacing yourself a bit. But that is only being overly cautious, personally. I have a heart thing and i frequent 200 on a hard work out even now without bad consequences. Good luck in your journey
  • sympha01
    sympha01 Posts: 942 Member
    Options
    170 seems kind of high for your age, as your theoretical estimated maximal heart rate would be 180 (200 minus age is the simplest formula, though there are better formula more appropriate for people our age). For someone who is new to exercise, exercising steady-state at 50%-60% of your max is probably a pretty good place to start (so for you, 90bpm-126bpm). This is a nice safe place to build up a base for endurance. Once that's easy, keeping your steady-state from 60%-70% is good, with short bursts of up to 85% for higher-intensity training.

    There's a lot of individual variation, and the rules of thumb are really just estimates though. If you feel good when you're exercising, then your heart rate is probably not dangerously high.

    You didn't mention how long your exercise sessions are, how long it takes you to get to that 160-170 level, whether you stay at that zone the whole time or just peak there (it sounds like that's where you peak, nbd), whether you are going steady-state or doing intervals (I'm guessing steady-state), etc. These factors can also be taken into account. Also, to some extent it probably depends on what kind of device you are using to measure your HR. A chest strap is the gold standard. The only wrist-worn device that I've heard is reasonably accurate is the MIO. Other wrist-worn devices that measure heart rate along with other fitness measures can be helpful for fitness and activity in general, but their heart rate measurements as such should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Taking your pulse with your fingers or with a smartphone camera app is fine when your body is totally at rest, but kind of rubbish during exercise.
  • sheltol
    sheltol Posts: 120 Member
    Options
    sympha01 wrote: »
    170 seems kind of high for your age, as your theoretical estimated maximal heart rate would be 180 (200 minus age is the simplest formula, though there are better formula more appropriate for people our age).

    The estimate formula is 220 - age. Not 200. 170 is great. As long as you are pushing yourself and not reading a magazine or talking to everyone around you it looks as though you are working hard.

    I agree with the above that heart rate monitors on a machine or ones that do not use a chest strap are probably not accurate.
  • kim_m_kk
    kim_m_kk Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    I am on the tread mill usually between 30 and 45 minutes. Today I did the elliptical for 5 minutes first and that had my heart rate at 160-170 in less than a minute bi only managed five minutes. Then I did a weight circuit and then the treadmill. When I got on my heart rate was 135 and quickly went to 160. The machine said I needed to be at 144 and slowed me down. I finally took it off cardio setting and put it on manual. I try to walk around 3.0-3.2 mph.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    To be on the safe side, you should get a check up with your physician just to be sure and ask them about heart rate numbers. Better to be safe than sorry.
  • kim_m_kk
    kim_m_kk Posts: 61 Member
    Options
    I asked my dr he said exercise is good for you go do it. That was his big help. He did calculate my ideal heart rate and that's was all of his advise
  • blankiefinder
    blankiefinder Posts: 3,599 Member
    Options
    I would suggest going here Web MD calculator and it has several tabs including one that shows your calculated max heart rate and the various zones including target rates, high intensity rates, recovery rates.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    People used perceived exertion levels for years in the days before affordable HR monitors (machine based or worn). Simple rule of thumb ... if you're not dizzy, blacking out, hyperventilating, etc ... you're probably o.k.

    HR data can be useful, in context. HR data on its own is pretty much meaningless.
  • Khukhullatus
    Khukhullatus Posts: 361 Member
    Options
    Bear in mind, this is second hand knowledge. My brother is a nurse at a physical therapy office, and he was telling me that "they" are rethinking the standard heart rate rules. I guess they were over estimating for younger people, under estimating for older people, and really not right at all for people who were extremely healthy or extremely unhealthy.

    His advice to me during cardio was to push it as hard as I felt comfortable with, so long as I could still hold a conversation during my exercise. From what I understand, that's how they are training runners these days as well.

    I've seen some pretty serious benefits training in this "range," in terms of my ability to sustain a run. It's also really tracked well for me, because as I get more active, the speed I can run and still hold a conversation has increased without me needing to think too much about heart rate.

    I guess the new thinking is that the only really meaningful time to take a heart rate is at rest to get a benchmark for general cardiovascular health.

    Talk it over with your doc, but that advice has helped me a ton.
  • sympha01
    sympha01 Posts: 942 Member
    Options
    sheltol wrote: »
    sympha01 wrote: »
    170 seems kind of high for your age, as your theoretical estimated maximal heart rate would be 180 (200 minus age is the simplest formula, though there are better formula more appropriate for people our age).

    The estimate formula is 220 - age. Not 200. 170 is great. As long as you are pushing yourself and not reading a magazine or talking to everyone around you it looks as though you are working hard.

    sheltol is right -- 200 was a typo on my part.

    But I stand by my statement that 170 would be on the high side for an untrained 40 yo. That represents 95% of theoretical max (using the 220 minus age calculation). That level is extremely high and typically only recommended for people who are very fit and well-conditioned, which you have said you are not, OP. It would be irresponsible for anyone other than your doctor to simply tell someone who is not used to exercise that any exercise below pushing yourself to extreme limits is pointless. It's good to work hard. For anyone, but particularly someone out of condition, 80% to 85% of max constitutes pushing yourself pretty damned hard.

    That being said, based on your followup OP where you said that your heart rate is PEAKING at 170 and you're not sustaining it for longer periods in an exercise session, and that I'm still guessing that you're not using a chest strap to measure but some much less accurate method like a finger pulse meter on the treadmill (those things are wrong by a lot), you're probably fine.
  • whitemagnolia1
    whitemagnolia1 Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    My heart rate has always been on the low end of normal scale at checkups. I am 40 yo female 4'11. My resting hr is 72 bpm. 220-40=180 max hr. Target hr should be 108-135 bpm during cardio. Began eliptical this week. Killed my thighs but with the urging of those who train, I did it again Friday and I am fine now. On the eliptical machine my hr was only 72 bpm. I kept checking and same. I was working up a dripping sweat and know I was putting forth the required effort. So instead I went by the how I felt. Pushed myself to do a full 15 mins. A week ago I did a fit test to get my initial stats. I had recovery hr of 83 bpm so obviously my hr was higher than that when I was doing the 3 min steps of the test. I guess my point is the hr monitors on the machines are not always accurate and just use as a reference. Your body tells you when you are working too hard. You just have to listen and adjust accordingly.
  • brianpperkins
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    Options
    sympha01 wrote: »
    sheltol wrote: »
    sympha01 wrote: »
    170 seems kind of high for your age, as your theoretical estimated maximal heart rate would be 180 (200 minus age is the simplest formula, though there are better formula more appropriate for people our age).

    The estimate formula is 220 - age. Not 200. 170 is great. As long as you are pushing yourself and not reading a magazine or talking to everyone around you it looks as though you are working hard.

    sheltol is right -- 200 was a typo on my part.

    But I stand by my statement that 170 would be on the high side for an untrained 40 yo. That represents 95% of theoretical max (using the 220 minus age calculation). That level is extremely high and typically only recommended for people who are very fit and well-conditioned, which you have said you are not, OP. It would be irresponsible for anyone other than your doctor to simply tell someone who is not used to exercise that any exercise below pushing yourself to extreme limits is pointless. It's good to work hard. For anyone, but particularly someone out of condition, 80% to 85% of max constitutes pushing yourself pretty damned hard.

    That being said, based on your followup OP where you said that your heart rate is PEAKING at 170 and you're not sustaining it for longer periods in an exercise session, and that I'm still guessing that you're not using a chest strap to measure but some much less accurate method like a finger pulse meter on the treadmill (those things are wrong by a lot), you're probably fine.

    "theoretical" is no substitute for tested numbers. If the OP is able to exercise at that level without adverse effects ... she's good.
  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    Options
    From what I've found is that everyone is different. Lance Armstrongs HR runs closer to 200 during a work out. Obviously he's conditioned. But some research suggests our HR is genetic. I've been active for years now and its not uncommon my HR is 180+ during a run. I'm 44f 127lbs. I say if you feel fine, then you probably are.
  • 999tigger
    999tigger Posts: 5,235 Member
    Options
    yep some people have diffeent heart rates than ohers. If you dont have a history of heart problems and you arent using a HR, then do the perceived exertion and listen to your body on what it is telling you. its easy to know when you are making an effort and at what level.
  • davert123
    davert123 Posts: 1,568 Member
    Options
    Get a book called "total Heart rate training" by a guy called Joe Friel. You can download on a kindle for a few dollars. It will clarify fact from bro-science and will really improve your training :-)
  • desika8787
    desika8787 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    In general it's 220/200 - age (different sources - fitness and medical). But this is "in general" - as long as you don't have any diagnosis according to heart and lungs you can exercise as long as you feel fine. Listen to your body, you know yourself when you have to go down or to pause. And you also have to know that most of the HR-software counts up your heart rate. Therefore you are measured higher than real. You don't have to worry about it.

    I am dealing with such questions day by day at the hospital and even if there is a diagnosis according to heart you are quite "free" for exercising. :)

    Keep up your good work and have some trust into your body :)
  • Codefox
    Codefox Posts: 308 Member
    Options
    The formula means NOTHING. The only thing that the formula tells you is what you'll get if you subtract your age from 220. Other than that, its a completely useless way to find your HRmax. My max is around 209 or 210 but by the formula would be 186.

    The only way to find your HR is either by a doctor (recommended) or if you're in good health, the easiest way (but this will hurt) is to go for a run and find a hill. And run up that hill as hard as you can. And back down. And keep doing that until your chest is about to explode and you can't go any faster.

    Then you'll know your HRmax. If you're working out and 170 feels easy to you then you may just have a higher max than others do.
  • desika8787
    desika8787 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    Codefox wrote: »
    The formula means NOTHING. The only thing that the formula tells you is what you'll get if you subtract your age from 220. Other than that, its a completely useless way to find your HRmax. My max is around 209 or 210 but by the formula would be 186.

    The only way to find your HR is either by a doctor (recommended) or if you're in good health, the easiest way (but this will hurt) is to go for a run and find a hill. And run up that hill as hard as you can. And back down. And keep doing that until your chest is about to explode and you can't go any faster.

    Then you'll know your HRmax. If you're working out and 170 feels easy to you then you may just have a higher max than others do.

    And even then this means nothing :) and even a doctor can't tell you your HRmax for a 100%. At the hospital or a GP can only tell you if your HR is your HRmax or if it's pathological and is not accorded to your exercise :)
  • Codefox
    Codefox Posts: 308 Member
    Options
    desika8787 wrote: »
    And even then this means nothing :) and even a doctor can't tell you your HRmax for a 100%. At the hospital or a GP can only tell you if your HR is your HRmax or if it's pathological and is not accorded to your exercise :)

    By doctor I mean in a controlled setting where they have you do exactly what I described. Work yourself silly until you're about to collapse. Its safer when you're being monitored if you don't have a high level of fitness.
  • desika8787
    desika8787 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    Codefox wrote: »
    desika8787 wrote: »
    And even then this means nothing :) and even a doctor can't tell you your HRmax for a 100%. At the hospital or a GP can only tell you if your HR is your HRmax or if it's pathological and is not accorded to your exercise :)

    By doctor I mean in a controlled setting where they have you do exactly what I described. Work yourself silly until you're about to collapse. Its safer when you're being monitored if you don't have a high level of fitness.

    The only controlled way would be a stress/exercise ECG but for a healthy person this is not necessary :) I worked 2 years for a hospital focused on heart issues and sports medicine :)

Categories