Heart rate.

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 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.

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.

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 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 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

desika8787 wrote: »

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

Heh, well, that would be why I said in my original post to go outside and find a hill if you're in good health. I assume if someone has HBP they don't want to be seeing how hard they can push their heart rate.