Heart Rate
kaylamariia
Posts: 41 Member
Hey everyone! After gaining quite a bit of weight, I’m back at trying to get myself back on track. My resting heart rate is always between 60-70. I started my exercising journey by jogging 1.7 miles every day. Even at a pretty reasonable speed, my heart rate spikes up to 170-200 (yes, I’m sure it’s accurate) and stays that way through my whole run. It was like this 4 years ago when I was very fit and exercised daily, but I never thought of it as anything because I figured it was good for burning calories. Now that I’m closer to 30 years old, I’m wondering If this is okay. Anyone else experience this?
0
Replies
-
How are you sure it's accurate?0
-
are you using a heart rate monitor with a strap?0
-
-
zebasschick wrote: »are you using a heart rate monitor with a strap?
I use a wrist watch, I’ve used machines at the gym and I’ve checked myself. It always runs very high with little effort0 -
The Mayo Clinic says "You can calculate your maximum heart rate by subtracting your age from 220. For example, if you're 45 years old, subtract 45 from 220 to get a maximum heart rate of 175. This is the average maximum number of times your heart should beat per minute during exercise."
It also says "It's important to note that maximum heart rate is only a guide. You may have a higher or lower maximum heart rate, sometimes by as much as 15 to 20 beats per minute. If you want a more specific range, consider discussing your target heart rate zone with an exercise physiologist or a personal trainer."
I don't know how old you are, but if you're older than 20ish, you may want to ask a doctor or something.
2 -
My heart rate is higher than average. When I exercise hard it goes well above the simplified 220-age formula you sometimes see, and I've pushed it up to at least 200 bpm. Once when I was in the hospital they held me overnight because they were concerned about it, but after doing a dye contrast CT they didn't find anything wrong.
There is a large variation in individual pulse rates, so it's probably nothing to be too concerned about. A high pulse rate doesn't necessarily mean you're burning more calories than someone with a lower pulse rate, though. That's related to how much oxygen you're consuming.4 -
My heart rate is higher than average. When I exercise hard it goes well above the simplified 220-age formula you sometimes see, and I've pushed it up to at least 200 bpm. Once when I was in the hospital they held me overnight because they were concerned about it, but after doing a dye contrast CT they didn't find anything wrong.
There is a large variation in individual pulse rates, so it's probably nothing to be too concerned about. A high pulse rate doesn't necessarily mean you're burning more calories than someone with a lower pulse rate, though. That's related to how much oxygen you're consuming.
Thanks for the insight!!3 -
My brother could hit 200+ bpm into his 60's when doing intense cardio - he also has an unusually low resting HR (c. 35bpm).
There's a lot of personal variations - if you don't have any feeling of distress and no adverse symptoms your numbers could well just be normal for you. If you didn't know your heartrate would you have any concerns about pushing too hard while exercising?3 -
My max hr is a lot higher as well. But I'm fit, and when I stop the activity it comes down quickly. If you don't know how to make sense of it just ignore it.
You become better at running by running longer. You do that by running relatively slow. Slow running is a pace where you're still able to talk in coherent sentences, maybe even sing to music.
You can add a short, fast run every now and then. This would be close to your max. You can't really speak anymore then
And intermediate runs complete the triplets. They are inbetween these two.3 -
My heart rate is very high also, I pushed myself on a run once until I thought I couldn't go any further took my heart rate and added 5 beats per min to that and figure that's pretty close to my max!1
-
As others have said, heart rate maximums don't necessarily fit the formula of 220-age. I am in my 60s and my HR will be in the 170s on a moderate paced hilly run. I average in the 160s. It's in the 180s if I push myself. Run by perceived effort. If it feels easy, so you can speak in whole sentences, then you're running at the right effort. If you are gasping for breath, slow down.4
-
kaylamariia wrote: »Even at a pretty reasonable speed, my heart rate spikes up to 170-200
200 does seem high for average intensity exercise, so mention it to your doctor. Do you have anxiety issues? That can raise HR during exercise.1 -
Yes, do mention it to your physician and see if s/he wants to refer you for testing. I did when no machine could seem to calculate my heartbeat rate accurately -- turns out I had a minor arrhythmia that's fixed with a pill -- but they did, among other things, a stress test. I like to call it my very expensive clean bill of health -- thank goodness I had good insurance.1
-
Gosh I thought I was the only older person who averages in the 170s during a moderate paced run. Sort of comforting to read that the there are others like me. I think recovery rates and resting heart rates are also important. At the OPs age, that HR is not scary. I can remember pushing ourselves to hit 200 on runs when we were in our 20's. But everyone is different. I have had a stress echo done previously so I rule out other issues. It might not be a bad idea to visit a cardiologist even if just to get a baseline. Sometimes I wonder if my heart rate is so rapid because of the yo yo ing I have done over my lifetime.1
-
My brother could hit 200+ bpm into his 60's when doing intense cardio - he also has an unusually low resting HR (c. 35bpm).
There's a lot of personal variations - if you don't have any feeling of distress and no adverse symptoms your numbers could well just be normal for you. If you didn't know your heartrate would you have any concerns about pushing too hard while exercising?
Great point, if I never physically saw the numbers I would have no concerns at all.
1 -
spiriteagle99 wrote: »As others have said, heart rate maximums don't necessarily fit the formula of 220-age. I am in my 60s and my HR will be in the 170s on a moderate paced hilly run. I average in the 160s. It's in the 180s if I push myself. Run by perceived effort. If it feels easy, so you can speak in whole sentences, then you're running at the right effort. If you are gasping for breath, slow down.
I think my intensity is somewhere in between. I couldn’t have a full seamless conversation, but I’m not struggling to breathe. I’ll try pulling back a bit when I go on my run this evening and see if that helps! Perhaps I just don’t fit the formula either.
0 -
Agreeing with others here (that 220-age is way wrong for lots of people; that rate of perceived exertion is useful for unusual cases (or anyone, really); and that a high HR without other negative symptoms isn't likely an urgent problem (but is worth asking your doctor about, when you see her/him).
Wanting to add:
* Having a higher heart rate doesn't mean you're burning more calories than someone the same size, doing the same workout, who happens to have a lower heart rate. The work (in pretty much the physics sense of work) determines the energy requirement, the energy requirement is the calorie burn, and heart rate changes only approximately correlate with workload changes in a single individual (and even then it'll change with longer term changes in fitness level). Lots of things drive heart rate changes (heat, stress, dehydration, etc.), pretty much only one of which (oxygen demand) correlates with calorie burn. For most people, despite these issues, the estimates are still potentially close enough to be useful.
* If you suspect you have an unusual heart rate range, but want to be able to use heart rate or similar metrics for training purposes, you might want to consider sports-related testing at a university lab, at some future time. I'd wait until good base fitness is in place, personally, then think about it . . . but some highly-motivated people with spare $$$ like having a baseline for some of the data.
* If you have a statistically unusual heart rate range, it inceases the chances that exercise calorie estimates from heart-rate-based devices will be incorrect. Cross-check with other (non-HR) sources as a reasonableness test.
* Once you've developed reasonable base fitness and endurance, you could consider running some kind of heart-rate max self test. There are various submaximal effort tests for approximating a HRmax estimate, so it isn't necessarily all about reaching max. I don't have a specific one to proposed (used a coach-run rowing machine max test myself), but use a search engine to find one from a university or sports-med practice or something like that.0 -
kaylamariia wrote: »spiriteagle99 wrote: »As others have said, heart rate maximums don't necessarily fit the formula of 220-age. I am in my 60s and my HR will be in the 170s on a moderate paced hilly run. I average in the 160s. It's in the 180s if I push myself. Run by perceived effort. If it feels easy, so you can speak in whole sentences, then you're running at the right effort. If you are gasping for breath, slow down.
I think my intensity is somewhere in between. I couldn’t have a full seamless conversation, but I’m not struggling to breathe. I’ll try pulling back a bit when I go on my run this evening and see if that helps! Perhaps I just don’t fit the formula either.
I'm not a doctor, but heart rates vary a lot and it shouldn't be dangerous if you feel fine. I used to stay around 170 when I ran.
For aerobic fitness, though, it's counter-intuitive but you'll progress faster if you slow down. The reason for this is that when you push yourself, a larger proportion of your energy is coming from anaerobic metabolism so you're actually using you aerobic system less than if you slowed down. The ideal should be somewhere around 70% of your maximum heart rate. I try and keep my heart rate between 120 and 140 when I run (maybe 150 if it's really hot). You should be able to talk easily and breathe normally.1 -
Ditto's to above from tappae.
Even if you have a Honda heart as far as high HRmax and runs higher than average for most activities - that still sounds a bit high.
Not dangerous, just makes me think it's running that high because you have a poor aerobic base.
Ditto's to Ann thoughts too.
Several places here run the VO2max tests, sometimes along with RMR test (I just realized I don't hear many posts about that anymore) first.
And OP - don't worry about the formula - for women it's pretty big bell - you have more chances of being outside the 10 bpm calculated than within.0 -
I looked for some other max HR formulas and found this first- runnersworld
"The American College of Sports Medicine recommends formulas with a standard deviation of seven beats per minute such as Gellish and Tanaka equations.
Gellish2: 191.5 - .007 x age^2 = MHR
Fairburn: 201 - .63 x age for women = MHR
OR 208 - .80 x age for men = MHR
Gellish: 206.9 - (o.67 x age) = MHR
Tanaka: 208 - (0.7 x age) = MHR
But there’s still a problem for the general public when it comes to using these formulas—they’re still just a rough estimate of MHR because differences between individuals can vary widely."
I don't think your numbers are too far off. As others have said there is plenty variation.
What I find hardly mentioned is cardio drift .
Mainly due to heat and hydration it seems HR can rise by 10+% for the same load.
My HR just keeps rising the longer I workout.
Age predicted is 159 - prev. seen 173, went to 175 last week ??
Shoots holes in the calories burned "estimates"0 -
Get a calc in here for many of those alternates. (none of which go high enough for me)
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
1 -
I looked for some other max HR formulas and found this first- runnersworld
"The American College of Sports Medicine recommends formulas with a standard deviation of seven beats per minute such as Gellish and Tanaka equations.
Gellish2: 191.5 - .007 x age^2 = MHR
Fairburn: 201 - .63 x age for women = MHR
OR 208 - .80 x age for men = MHR
Gellish: 206.9 - (o.67 x age) = MHR
Tanaka: 208 - (0.7 x age) = MHR
But there’s still a problem for the general public when it comes to using these formulas—they’re still just a rough estimate of MHR because differences between individuals can vary widely."
I don't think your numbers are too far off. As others have said there is plenty variation.
What I find hardly mentioned is cardio drift .
Mainly due to heat and hydration it seems HR can rise by 10+% for the same load.
My HR just keeps rising the longer I workout.
Age predicted is 159 - prev. seen 173, went to 175 last week ??
Shoots holes in the calories burned "estimates"
I'd argue that drift isn't very important, as an element in calorie estimation based on HR. If my exercise calorie estimate is only off by 10%, and that maybe only for part of the session, that would be pretty excellent accuracy. 🤣 Unfortunately, there are other sources of variation in HR-based calorie estimates, so the total accuracy picture is potentially worse. But we don't really know, do we?
In reality, drift related inaccuracy, and even exercise estimating inaccuracy from any reasonable estimating method, gets lost arithmetically in the noise of all the other estimating error involved in calorie counting, so the big picture can still work out fine. (Basically, law of (semi-)large numbers.) In a context where we're calorie counting, adjusting intake based on multi-week scale results, and not varying our exercise schedules in truly wild ways, consistency of exercise estimates is important, and monitoring/adjusting compensates for a surprising amount of technical inaccuracy. Not worth stressing over, IMO.
I do still think it's worth considering, for a particular exercise, whether a HR-based, distance-based, or METS-based exercise calorie estimate is likely to be a better approximation, though (lacking a power meter).
Some HRM/fitness trackers will let you set HRmax manually. If yours does, presumably you've at least set it to 175, rather than the 159 you know is wrong? If so, how much did your calorie estimates change?
FWIW, none of the formulas for HRmax estimates are close for me, based on the calculator heybales linked. I'm 64, female, sub-elite 🤣, and the highest estimate there for me is 164. Reality is more like 180, based on a max test a few years back. I haven't been re-tested lately (or tried to hit max really recently during a workout, frankly), but my understanding is that HRmax decline with aging is slowed in people who remain active, so if there's a drop I'm betting it's not major (plus the zones based off HRrest and 180 "feel right" per RPE).
I'm no expert, but I thought drift was not exclusively via heat or hydration, either of which independently can cause HR to run higher for a given workload - maybe more to do with the performance of oxygen delivery and fuel usage systems, with continued exercise stress? (Dunno, but bet heybales does). Also, I know that I personally see HR drift even when I take breaks for ample hydration, so at least in my case simply staying hydrated doesn't stop drift.0 -
I looked for some other max HR formulas and found this first- runnersworld
"The American College of Sports Medicine recommends formulas with a standard deviation of seven beats per minute such as Gellish and Tanaka equations.
Gellish2: 191.5 - .007 x age^2 = MHR
Fairburn: 201 - .63 x age for women = MHR
OR 208 - .80 x age for men = MHR
Gellish: 206.9 - (o.67 x age) = MHR
Tanaka: 208 - (0.7 x age) = MHR
But there’s still a problem for the general public when it comes to using these formulas—they’re still just a rough estimate of MHR because differences between individuals can vary widely."
I don't think your numbers are too far off. As others have said there is plenty variation.
What I find hardly mentioned is cardio drift .
Mainly due to heat and hydration it seems HR can rise by 10+% for the same load.
My HR just keeps rising the longer I workout.
Age predicted is 159 - prev. seen 173, went to 175 last week ??
Shoots holes in the calories burned "estimates"
There's a big Norwegian meta study comparing hr data across age, gender and ethnicity. I don't have it at hand, but remember that about 40% of all participants were off much more than any of these formulars predicted.
Btw, I'm 46 and my maxHR is around 205ish, which is a bit extreme, but still seems to be true for about 5% of a population (on the high and low side, though people will low HR while working out tend to not go to a cardiologist in general, thus it might be undersampled in general)0 -
Get a calc in here for many of those alternates. (none of which go high enough for me)
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
Gimme 5!
0 -
Cardiac drift is basically for cooling effects from just normal increase in body temp when working out.
I'd suggest the over-heated (like hot day) and dehydrated is even above and beyond that normal response, or at least worth mentioning separately.
Interesting how Polar doesn't touch on estimated calorie burn being effected, just your training.
https://www.polar.com/blog/cardiac-drift-effect-on-training/#:~:text=Cardiac drift can be defined,while exercise intensity remains constant.
Pretty sure it was the Firstbeat (which Garmin uses on some devices) whitepaper that mentions attempting to get around this by using HRV for the beat-to-beat differences to discern what the breathing rate is.
Because if the breathing rate stays the same which it could when the work load is really the same, then the increased HR wasn't for the purpose of harder work load but other reasons.
Polar could be doing this too, hence no comment or calories.
But the Polar is interesting regarding what kind of time and effort is needed for it to start mattering - and therefore to what type of training would be effected. (or calorie burn on something long, that 15% could be say 270 cal inflated on 3 hr session, that's marathon training or long bike ride easily)1 -
I read this in azdak's june '11 blog
" . . . could cause an HRM to OVERestimate exercise calories. This was clearly demonstrated during my workout. I wear a Polar F11. The HRM calorie number for the 1st 30 min of my workout was 353, for the 2nd 30 min 460. That's a 30% difference--with NO change in workload intensity. "
My HR graphs all have this shape ,even when I lower the intensity a little in later stages -
This one was at constant intensity ,treadmill incline walk.
Thinking now ,I guess my breathing rate does seem to stay fairly steady ,
I have used 173 max HR input so don't know cal. burn difference to age predict. maxHR
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions