Question re: heart rate

[Raindrop]

Heart rate measurments are guestimates and the 220-age or the woman's 226-age is one that fits only about 1/3 of the population. Also, a higher max heart rate is not a sign of fitness. The heart rate is what it is, in that it's genetically programmed. However, as one trains to get fitter you'll find the ability to work at higher heart rates without going anaerobic.

Also, it has been shown that the heart rate doesn't necessarily decline as one ages as long as you keep aerobically fit. I use a heart rate monitor when I train and I encourage my clients (I'm a personal trainer and Spinning instructor) to use one as well.

I think if you coorelate your breathing to your heart rate you get a better estimate of your possible heart rate max. That, and also going with highest number seen. You'll know when you get into the "red zone" of your heart rate max when you are thouroughly warmed up and then work increasingly harder until you reach a point that you can no longer increase your effort and at this point most people feel the need to slow down since they are close to puking.

For most of us this is an area we don't care or need to work at. I read an interesting article by Dr. Len Kravitz that illustrates how to determine if you're working at a level that will increase your cardio-respitory fitness:

http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/talktest.html

[mimitabby]

My resting HR is 60 today!! (whoopiee! it used to be closer to 80)
I'm 54 years old
but I wore a HR monitor this weekend for the first time and found out
that much over 162 and I am really getting stressed. The good news
is that my HR goes back down fairly quickly.

So, if you are 40 or over I would be concerned about those numbers
but if you are just a sweet young thing, you probably aren't hurting yourself
but keep working and it will go down.

[spokewench]

i haven't hit 190's since I was 40! No way can I get it that high anymore!

I'm 46. I used to have a fast heartrate also when I was racing in my 30's. It was always kind of hard to take when my husband who is 5 years older would be 10-20 beats slower!

But, like most people say here, everyone's heart rates are different and will vary with training.

[7rider]

I think I recall reading somewhere that a woman's heart rate is generally ~10 bpm higher than a man's for any given activity (all things considered). Anyone see that same bit o' info?
DH has me by 7 years of age, but it's startling how different our HRs are on the same hill. I can't swing my leg over a bike without my HR going up to 150 or higher. Highest I've seen for me was 188 (vs. my Polar's "predicted" maxHR from me of 185). To do real training in my 70-80% zone, I could never take the bike out on the road. I'd be forever on the rollers.

[RoadRaven]

K... I'm back in this thread again... just been sussing out my max as I have been pushing myself harder these last few weeks

According to the calculation 220-age (41) my max shouls be around 179... but I have managed to get my max up to 184 in a race situation recently, sprinting... feeling fairly sick when I finsihed (but I did win the sprint! so it was worth it). I have since pushed myself a few times over 180, so I know it wasn't an annomoly.

My resting heart rate usually sits in the low 40s, but the lowest I have seen it is 39 on a few occasions.

So my range, at 41yrs (and 1 month) is 184bpm-39bpm

Its fascinating to read everyone elses and how you use/interpret this information for your training and racing.

[RoadRaven]

To do real training in my 70-80% zone, I could never take the bike out on the road. I'd be forever on the rollers.

Regina - I am interested by your words here.

Do you mean you cant get your heart rate up on the road?

See, if thats what you're saying, I find that interesting because I can't get my HR as high on the spin bike as I can when I am on the road. So I use the spin bike for specific rides - like cycling at 90 or 95 cadence for 45 minutes, or doing step up intervals.

The other training that involves pushing my LT, or hills, I do out on the road, as I cant seem to simulate it effectively indoors.

[lph]

I'm curious about my heart rate lately too. My brother died young and completely unexpectedly of a heart attack recently, so I've been taking a somewhat morbid interest in my heart function that I previously couldn't have cared less about.

So I borrowed a HR monitor and on my first ride (dirt road in the woods, plenty of hills) I was idly reckoning out my max HR to be ...lemmesee... 220-37=183. Next hill I hit there were some fit young men ahead just begging to be passed and before I knew it I had hit 185.
And on similar occasions (that is, fit young men, slow old women, or just anybody, actually, that NEEDS passing ) I've easily hit 180-185 and kept that rate for 10-20 seconds. So the formula obviously is inaccurate for me.

So from that I'm guessing my max is 190 or higher. I know you're supposed to test it individually, but it sounds like such a hassle, throwing yourself up a hill 3 times til you almost puke?

Another surprise was that with a resting HR of about 55 (evening, not morning) I still have a much higher HR (75-100) just moving around the house. Weird.

[7rider]

Regina - I am interested by your words here.

Do you mean you cant get your heart rate up on the road?

See, if thats what you're saying, I find that interesting because I can't get my HR as high on the spin bike as I can when I am on the road. So I use the spin bike for specific rides - like cycling at 90 or 95 cadence for 45 minutes, or doing step up intervals.

The other training that involves pushing my LT, or hills, I do out on the road, as I cant seem to simulate it effectively indoors.

Oops.. Sorry for the delay, Raven. I haven't checked this thread in a while.

No, I"m saying I can't keep my HR low on the road. It's always high.
If my maxHR is 185, 80% is 148 (185*0.8, unless I'm doing my math wrong). So the 70-80% range would be ~130-148. I routinely ride in the 165 range. For instance, my most recent ride (63 miles, lots of hills), my average HR was 152 and max 182 (avg. cadence was 63, but that includes all time spent coasting, too, so I guess that measures low, since I generally aim to pedal in the 90-95 range, too.). In contrast, I just did 20 minutes on the Concept II tonight (rowing machine, so probably not directly comparable) and my average was 124, max 145. I intend to ride rollers tomorrow night...I'll see how it goes with that.

[Veronica]

Oops.. Sorry for the delay, Raven. I haven't checked this thread in a while.

(avg. cadence was 63, but that includes all time spent coasting, too, so I guess that measures low, since I generally aim to pedal in the 90-95 range, too.).

My HRM doesn't factor in the time spent coasting, are you sure that yours does?

Can you get a graph that shows what your cadence is over time? That would be an easy way to see if it is averaging in the zeros. I wouldn't like it if mine averaged in the zeroes.

V.

[VeloChick]

I think I recall reading somewhere that a woman's heart rate is generally ~10 bpm higher than a man's for any given activity (all things considered). Anyone see that same bit o' info? DH has me by 7 years of age, but it's startling how different our HRs are on the same hill.

Your max HR is genetic, and in the trained athlete, it generally does not go down with age. No absolute number is better, or worse than another. The only numbers that really matter are % of MHR. (or % of LT if you've done tests to show your current LT)

I can't swing my leg over a bike without my HR going up to 150 or higher. Highest I've seen for me was 188 (vs. my Polar's "predicted" maxHR from me of 185). To do real training in my 70-80% zone, I could never take the bike out on the road. I'd be forever on the rollers.

Use the highest number you've seen on your HRM for your true MHR (it may even be higher, but never lower). If you cannot train in zones of 70-80% while on the bike, you really need to do more base and aerobic work. You can start this by riding a mtb on the road, and using its much lower gearing to keep your HR down. You can also do more roller work in the low HR zones.

It takes much discipline to keep your HR down, but in the long run, it can pay off big time!

[Crankin]

It's only been recently that i learned that the 220-minus your age formula did not apply to trained people. I stopped wearing my HR monitor a couple of years ago because i was always worried and obsessed over the fact my numbers seemed too high. I think my HR is higher than a lot of others for whatever particular amount of work I am doing, but I have noticed a few things that made me realize that it's probably not any sign of something wrong. First, the older i get, the longer I need to warrm up. I know this is well known, but I don't always like to take the time to do this. I generally feel like crap for the first 20-30 minutes of a ride, unless I am riding really slowly, like 10-13 mph. I always feel like I don't have the time to do this, or if it's a group ride, they always go out fast and then tend to die at the other end (while I move up to the front). Going out fast really raises my HR like crazy. My HR tends to stay around 130-145 during normal riding that is flat with some rollers, at an average of 15-16 mph. It's been like this for most of the time I have been riding. Now 80% of mhr should be around 132 for my age, but it seems like my HR is stuck at the supposed level of someone in their early to mid forties. This is probably what's normal for me. The highest I have seen is around 152 recently, during high cadence drills on the trainer. I guess I am going to start wearing it again and then see what happens when I start climbing big hills outside (like my driveway!). The highest I ever saw my HR was 180, the first time i went for a run, about 4 years ago. The highest I ever saw it on a bike was in a spin class, maybe around the same time and it was 170. My resting HR in the AM is around 55-68, but during the day, it is usually around 68-72. Just walking around raises it pretty high, up into the 80s. I have to really work hard to keep it down when I ride, but I guess that's the way I am!

[Julibird]

I used to think my high MHR used to mean something - like better torque in my engine, but, alas, as previously mentioned, it's just a genenetic thing - not anything to do with fitness. MHR does not change whether one is fit or not. What does change is ones anaerobic threshold - it changes with increased fitness, state of rest and wellness, and is sport specific. Your threshold for running will be different than your cycling AT. So, if you can find out what your AT is, that will be useful information for training with a HR monitor.

Sally Edwards books are a good resource. I also heard she is getting on the power tap training bandwagon and will be coming out with a new book.

Oh well, performance is the best data at the end of the day.

Julie

[CR400]

Ok I know this is an old thread. Don't worry about high heart rate the 194 you talked about is only about 4 beats above LT for me or so the tester claimes. I think it is 194 though. My max is set at 215 but thats only because the heart rate monitor I have won't let me set it higher. I have actually held that 215 for a minuet or slightly more on more then one occasion, doubt it's my max. Resting heart rate 67.

[Geonz]

Hmmm... this thread is so old its heart rate is falling? I'm feeling good about the treats I just dodged, thinking "I'm burning calories now... I'm losing weight..." and then I check my cute HRM watch and it's 47 bpm. Geez... not burning many calories at all... do ya think the student in the computer lab would understand if I suddenly started doing crunches on the floor?

[smilingcat]

As long as my BPM don't crash to 0 I think I'm fine.

Well its interesting that men have lower BPM than women. Something new I learned today.

Thanks,