Heartrate discussion

[VeloVT]

It's really hard for me to feel like I"m exercising at less than 85% of max. That's a comfortable level for me to sustain over, say, an 8-12 mile run without feeling like my tongue is dragging the ground.

I don't use my HR monitor much because trying to stay UNDER a certain %HR (say, 80%) takes all of the fun out it for me .

I know I'll have to get over this eventually, but...

[Crankin]

I also stopped using my HR monitor. My resting HR in the morning before I get out of bed is anywhere between 55 and 62. It is very affected by lack of sleep, caffeine, stress, etc. But, once I start walking around, doing normal daily activities, it stays around 68 anywhere up to 75. Just getting up and walking can sometimes make it go to 80. I know from when I used my monitor, my HR would often go up to 130 right away! Then it settles in, stayed around 120-140 except during climbs (most of my riding is on rolling roads, with short steep climbs in between). As I got older, not much changed! It seems like my HR is always higher than everyone else's, yet I can climb tougher hills than a lot of the people I ride with. Now that I am 54, 80% of my max is around 133... I think if I wore my monitor I would find I am higher than that a lot of the time.

I don't worry about this anymore. I know I'm in pretty good shape and that my HR is usually higher than I think it should be.

[VeloVT]

I also stopped using my HR monitor. I know from when I used my monitor, my HR would often go up to 130 right away! Then it settles in, stayed around 120-140 except during climbs (most of my riding is on rolling roads, with short steep climbs in between)

I don't worry about this anymore. I know I'm in pretty good shape and that my HR is usually higher than I think it should be.

Running, I'll hit 180 within a mile or two and stay there for 75 minutes, which does seem high. I've never worn the thing on the bike though, my biking hr might be lower... resting hr is around 45 though.

[aicabsolut]

You are not hitting your max. Sure, you are up there and anaerobic and feeling crappy, but those exercises will not put you at your max. The formulas are a guide, but basically it boils down to genetics. You need to do a stress test (best if you get professionals to help you) where you are put to the max and your heart rate eventually peaks where you feel like you're going to die, but it won't climb any higher. You can guesstimate that your max HR is probably not too much higher than when you feel horrible during these workouts, but you are very likely not at your max under these conditions. Whether the number is relatively high or low compared to the formulas has no indication about how fit you are. Mine is pretty high. That just means that my comfortable working HR is also pretty high compared to others my age. That doesn't mean I'm fitter or they are. Resting HR and recovery time are better indications of cardiovascular fitness.

HR recovery time is another story altogether. When you get up to 80% or more, the time it takes your HR to get back to a moderate level indicates how fit you are. The more fit, the faster it will recover. So eventually you'll be riding your bike pretty hard at 185bpm, hit a red light, and in a minute of rest your HR will be down to, say 100bpm.

Interval training does the most to improve recovery time. You start out with long periods of recovery between short periods of hard work. Eventually, you shorten the recovery periods. Finally, you actually do recover in short periods of recovery. Just improving overall fitness will also help your recovery time, and it may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

[OakLeaf]

Just improving overall fitness... may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

Isn't it the opposite? that the more fit you are, the higher your HR at a given PER?

[sundial]

Tuckervill, my hubby was curious about HR and maxing it out quickly on long rides. So he bought a book, Heart Zones for Cycling. Maybe this will help answer your questions.

http://www.amazon.com/Heart-Zones-Cy.../dp/1931382840

I have a Polar too and my max heart rate is 184. My resting HR is 45 and my Own Zone is 128-154 to stay in the fat burning range.

[Andrea]

Just like everyone else said- there are a lot of "prediction" formulas out there, but they are just that- predictions. The most accurate way to know your max heart rate is to exercise as hard as possible. The highest heart rate you reach- even if it's only for a second or two- is your actual maximum heart rate. You can't do much to change that number. If you stay sedentary, it tends to decrease with time. However, if you keep training, you can maintain or at least slow the decrease.

As for testing for max HR, I recommend going to a lab that specializes in exercise physiology. They can perform a graded (as in progressively increasing in difficulty) exercise test in which they can measure VO2max (the most amount of oxygen your body is capable of using), max heart rate, lactate threshold, and VO2 used at different exercise intensities. By measuring the amount of O2 your body uses, you can calculate the amount of calories you are burning at different exercise intensities (which is why it's an important measurement to take in your case).
This type of testing is similar to a "stress test" performed at a doc's office, but is much more in-depth and will be of much greater benefit to you. The purpose of a stress test is not to test your capacity, but to evaluate your heart's electrical activity under "stress." They will watch your ECG (electrocardiogram) for anything that looks off. The thing is, if the ECG looks normal at, say, 85% of your age-predicted max heart rate, chances are very very slim that you'd see anything different at higher intensity levels, SO the doc will usually stop the test if everything looks normal up to that point. Therefore, you don't actually go until you reach your max heart rate, AND you don't get all that nifty data about how much oxygen (secondarily, calories) your body is using while you're exercising.

I hope this helps! Try checking your local university for a health and sport science department. They usually offer testing for a small fee (and the cost goes to help fund the lab- not line a doc's pockets!)

[VeloVT]

Isn't it the opposite? that the more fit you are, the higher your HR at a given PER?

Originally Posted by aicabsolut:
Just improving overall fitness... may also lower your HR for a certain perceived exertion rate.

Thanks for the morning brainteaser . You're both trying to say the same thing I think. It's easier to conceptualize with a concrete example: imagine a beginning runner who starts out running a 10 minute mile at an rpe of 7 and a heart rate of 175. After two months of training, she can run 8:30 miles at an rpe of 7 and a heart rate of 175. After another 6 weeks, she can run 8:30 miles with hr of 175 and rpe of 6.

I think there's a correlation (though not a perfect one) between rpe and hr; I think they may move more or less together at least at first, although after training it seems likely your rpe would go down for the same hr.

As you get fitter, BOTH your hr AND your *perceived* exertion will be lower for the same **actual** rate of exertion (for instance, if our runner were to do some easy runs at her initial 10 min pace, her hr would be much lower than it had been at that pace when she started).

(That was a long way of agreeing with Oakleaf, I guess ).

[Tuckervill]

I am SO interested in getting all that testing done, but I don't know if my hubby would go for it. It's not like I'm racing or competing in anything. I am competing with myself to get my body fit, and this would provide the most accurate data.

I'll I will check the UofArk. There's a UofA med school in Little Rock and that's probably where it would be done if they had such a thing.

Thanks!
Karen