Max Heart Rate Question

The evidence does not show max HR as having much risk. It's simply a reaction to exertion. Metrics worth reviewing are recovery rate - moving from exertion to rest and measuring the decrease in HR over 1 min & 2 mins.

Bodies do better with gradual activity, so the only concern would be unusual high stress activity going from sedentary without training. Note that this is why cardio is stressed so much - so that your heart and associated systems are prepared for activity.

I share the question about how you know your max. My 220-age is 158, but my tested max is about 180. If I believed my age-estimated max, I'd think I was in zone 5 (148+) during darned near every workout, but zone 5 is really more like 167+. I can get there, but I have to really work at it.

That said, a hot day does give me a noticeably higher heart rate for the same exertion than a cooler one**, and reduced hydration will also elevate HR noticeably. Were you drinking enough, and - for that length of workout in heat - replenishing electrolytes, plus maybe sugar/other quick carbs?

My understanding is like others: If you're healthy, and reasonably conditioned to what you're doing, it's not so much that there's some "too long" to be at a high heart rate from a health risk standpoint . . . but your body simply may refuse to stay there after a certain period of time, i.e., it's physically unsustainable. From your story, it's a little hard to separate out the effects of high HR, consistent hydration, electrolytes, maybe even dropping glycogen . . . any of which can influence the symptoms you report ("spent", "tapped out"). (I'd have trouble sorting out which factor was doing what even if I were the one doing the exercise, BTW.)

** I know it's about the same exertion because I'm tracking speed/distance/time, and rivers don't have hills to complicate the situation (I'm a rower).

gcconroy29 wrote: »

I really was just curious as to how long one should be in that zone. I can't say I was even concerned. I was totally exhausted, but that's what I would expect after that much effort. It didn't help that my mother was watching the game and caught the rates on my watch.

By definition, zone 5 is the cross over at your LTHR - lactic threshold. Below LTHR, you can operate for hours. Above LTHR, lactic acid builds up faster than it can be cast off. The maximum amount of time you can handle that is 60 minutes. After that, you have to stop, your body won't go on.

After you recover and cast off that lactic acid, you can go an hour again.

There is no problems doing that if your heart is healthy.

There is also no reason to monitor it unless your specifically training for something using HR

If hitting HR max (or near it) was dangerous, I'd be long dead. But I agree with others, don't try it if you're not in decent shape already and don't do it long if you aren't well trained. It has taken me around 6 years of training to get to the point that I'm doing over 80%/85% of max HR training 3 times a week.

I'm working on my 5K rowing times right now (wanting to go sub 19 minutes). That's very similar to going sub 19 on a 5K timed run (and I'm 53 to make it even more challenging). I'm doing 2/3 AT workouts a week and working hard on Lactic Acid clearance/tolerance, which means pushing your body to at least 90% a few times a week and perhaps just a bit more once a week (beyond that, even for trained athletes isn't a good idea). Any runner who competes at 5K runs seriously trains like I'm training right now all the time (I hate it, that's why I'm doing it!). I'm amazed at how well trained elite 5K runners or Sprint Triathletes are. They train MUCH harder than I'm training. Actually a hard as you can absolutely go 5K (in either rowing or running or perhaps even biking, maybe 10K for biking) is a good indicator of your HRM once you're decently trained. The last two/three minute average is a great general idea of your HRM (though that's even probably a bit short of where it actually is and limited by how good of max effort your body is in shape to do). Many that can go harder don't because pain tolerance. Pain tolerance is different than maximum capacity to work. They've proven that in harder cardio scenarios, your mind will stop you before your body absolutely can't do any more. There's a ton of mental aspect to pushing and finding out your MHR that a non trained person probably shouldn't attempt.

Likely, you just aren't used to your heart rate being up there (I certainly wasn't when I started working out, I could barely jog 100 steps!). Likely, your physical limitations right now will insulate you from going dangerously high on HR. Your mind will kick in before you're in any sense of danger as long as you've been cleared to exercise.

For added safety where a HRM and pay attention mostly to how fast your HR slows down. If you're not slowing down more than 10/15 heartbeats after taking a minute off of cardio, you're not slowing down fast enough. That's a sign you're pushing way too hard. As you become more fit, your HR can drop over 50 beats a minute after taking a rest from a hard workout.

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

The standard formula is 220 - AGE = 163.

So AGE always = 57?

Bear in mind there may be uncertainty based on how you are measuring your heart rate. For example, several models of Garmin heart rate monitors that measure heart rate based on a wrist sensor will give abnormally high readings if the watch isn’t seated snugly.

Since max heart rate is a number that influences so many other training parameters I would get interested in measuring it accurately.

Maximum heart rate is really more of a theoretical construct than a bona fide thing in the world. Contrast that to your LTHR which is a real thing, repeatable, and useful for training purposes. It's also unambiguous, compared to max HR which most people agree is different per sport. How is it possible that the same heart can have a different maximum rate for running vs cycling? Because what we mean by max heart rate tends to be "the highest you can actually achieve" that way. Not the maximum your heart can actually do, which anyway will change day to day with your fatigue levels and other things.

gcconroy29 wrote: »

Heart rate was calculated on my Garmin. I know at one point I looked and it was 179 which is the highest I've ever seen it. My max according the calculation is 181

I really was just curious as to how long one should be in that zone. I can't say I was even concerned. I was totally exhausted, but that's what I would expect after that much effort. It didn't help that my mother was watching the game and caught the rates on my watch.

But I agree with everyone, my body wasn't letting me be that high very long. Towards the end of that 2nd game, I was barely going after the ball.

Your Garmin uses the 220-age formula by default for your max heart rate. It then uses that number to set your heart rate zones. If your "true" max heart rate is not accurate, your zones will not be accurate either.

You can never get to your true max heart rate because your probably would collapse by then, but you can get a pretty close number by using an accurate heart rate monitor and doing something type of intervals, getting the highest heart rate measured and adding 5 to it.

If you are staying in zone 5 for that long, your true max heart rate is probably higher than the 220 - age formula that your Garmin is using.

I am 61 so my Garmin was using a max heart rate of 159. I was doing 60 second run intervals one very hot day. I did 10 intervals over a 3.85 mile distance. I did power walking as active recovery between intervals to still keep my heart rate up. By the time I got to about the 5th interval I noticed my heart rate hit 167. I thought my heart rate monitor just freaked out at first, but when I hit the next interval It hit 168. The remaining intervals it was hitting around the same, and the highest it hit 169. On that interval I felt like I was going to lose total control of my legs and pass out.

I took that 169 and added 5 to it, then set my max heart rate to 174 on my Garmin. Now my zones feel more like they should feel according to the explanations of how each zone should feel.

Point is, you should not be able to stay in zone 5 for very long at all (maybe a couple minutes if your in good shape), and you should not be ably to actually hit your true max heart rate.

I got the advice about adding 5 to your highest measured heart rate by someone in the suunto forum who runs ultra marathons, and them guys know how to train.

If you are going to do heart rate training, knowing your true max heart rate (or as close to it as you can get) is probably one of the most important factors, because it affects all your training zones.

Warm up & cool down well.
Rehydrate, replenish nutrients and rest sufficiently.
As you keep going, it gets easier

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

How is it possible that the same heart can have a different maximum rate for running vs cycling?

I'll bite on that one: how is it possible? It seems like I have the same for both. (And for swimming.) I can easily hit the same HRs in all three sports just by doing intervals in that sport.

That's interesting. I've seen my highest HRs in high-intensity short endurance work (like rowing machine races), and that's close to how my max was tested (progressively increasing intensity every X seconds until I failed to be able to improve pace further). I don't think I have the technique to get to that HR in all of the activities I do (but I don't try to optimize more than one, limited soul that I am ).

The medical types who did my cardiac stress test (treadmill) made me stop when I hit about my age-estimated HR max, I guess because they figured they had their data, even though I still had enough energy and breath to argue with them about it. (IIRC, I was around 30-40 beats below my rowing machine observed max at that point.)