Heart Rate Question

[Spydaman]

Just started the C25K after not running since school 40 years ago. I do cycle a bit so not a complete couch potato. I've just started week 3 and all is good so far. My heart rate during the walking bit is about 80bpm and about 110 after the running it never goes much above 120. Mrs Spydaman is doing it alongside me and 137 walking and 158 running. I'm 56 she's 50. Who's heart rate is right or am I not working hard enough?

[okgo]

lol

Where to even begin.

Heartrate is totally personal and unique to you. The bloke who has won the tour de france for the last few editions has a max heart rate 20 beats lower than mine, despite probably being the fittest athlete on the planet in a cardio vascular sense. It means nothing.

[popeyewhite]

Very loosely Mrs Spydamans MHR is about 170, so at 137 walking and 158 running, unless she's really pushing both, her HR is pretty high.

Whether you're working hard enough depends on your goals: For a 5k you're going well.

[mcelliott]

Those figures that you've quoted will only have relevance if you both know what your maximum heart rate is; that is the benchmark figure. Without it (and if you're training to HR zones) it's a complete waste of time.

[944fan]

mcelliott said:

Without it (and if you're training to HR zones) it's a complete waste of time.

Even with it its largely a waste. HR can be increased by some many things, stress, heat, caffeine etc that it is not a good tool even if you know the zones. Its also hard to actually get a MHR reading, especially if you are not fit as a proper test to do it is brutal.

OP - if you are interested at what level you should be training at then pace is a much better indicator. Do parkrun to get a "race pace" 5k time and then use something like the Jack Daniels (not the booze) Vdot tables to workout your easy run pace.

[Spydaman]

That's the target, a 5k Park Run but we've got another few weeks before we're ready for it. I was just interested in the differential in heart rate between me and Mrs S doing the same thing. Hers seems high and mine seems low.

[popeyewhite]

Spydaman said:

That's the target, a 5k Park Run but we've got another few weeks before we're ready for it. I was just interested in the differential in heart rate between me and Mrs S doing the same thing. Hers seems high and mine seems low.

By the standard of MAXHr = 220 - age it might seem that way, there are a number of other methods of working out maximum heart rate though. Incidentally it was shown (2010) that the '220 method' overestimates women's MAXHr, and it should be around 205, not 220.

[anonymous-user]

Given you stated starting point, I'd ognore your HR and work on rate of perceived exertion (RPE). Ditto your wife.

Unless you're the same weight, strength and fitness, and a range of other things, running side by side will mean your HRs will always be different.

[944fan]

popeyewhite said:

By the standard of MAXHr = 220 - age it might seem that way, there are a number of other methods of working out maximum heart rate though. Incidentally it was shown (2010) that the '220 method' overestimates women's MAXHr, and it should be around 205, not 220.

220 - age is based on a standard distribution bell chart and is as likely to be wrong as it is right.

OP - the differences in HR are going to be due to differing fitness levels, weight, and running economy. You for example may have a genetically higher prevalence towards a VO2 max and maybe fitter without any previous training history. You may be a more economical runner and so use less energy to move at the same rate.

Good luck with the C25K programme, its a great set up. I started with that a few years ago.

[popeyewhite]

944fan said:

220 - age is based on a standard distribution bell chart

So....? Go on, tell me what's peculiar or odd about a normal distribution bell chart.

944fan said:

and is as likely to be wrong as it is right.

It's one of many formulae for MAXHr backed by empirical research, but will only give a rough idea - as I've already said. As others have said everyone is different but how likely is it really the OP and his lady have high enough MAXHr they fall outside average ranges?

[944fan]

popeyewhite said:

944fan said:

220 - age is based on a standard distribution bell chart

So....? Go on, tell me what's peculiar or odd about a normal distribution bell chart.

I didn't say it was peculiar or odd.

944fan said:

and is as likely to be wrong as it is right.

It's one of many formulae for MAXHr backed by empirical research, but will only give a rough idea - as I've already said. As others have said everyone is different but how likely is it really the OP and his lady have high enough MAXHr they fall outside average ranges?

It is as likely that they fall out of normal range as it is likely that they are in. Either way its still a crap way of measuring exercise intensity if it was correct, which is may not be.

http://www.trimorefitness.com/02/28/2011/the-myth-...

https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/Robergs2.pdf

http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-...

Where is the empirical research backing this formula?

[popeyewhite]

944fan said:

It is as likely that they fall out of normal range as it is likely that they are in.

Actually, no.

944fan said:

Either way its still a crap way of measuring exercise intensity if it was correct, which is may not be.

I think I said it may not be!

944fan said:

http://www.trimorefitness.com/02/28/2011/the-myth-...

https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/Robergs2.pdf

http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/heart-zones/ten-...

Where is the empirical research backing this formula?

Plenty of textbooks if you're not linked to a University library.

Oh yes - you've still not explained the significance of the standard distribution bell chart you previously mentioned??

[Derek Smith]

I've been told by a doctor that I should not go over 155 whilst exercising in a gym and that my average should be around 10 beats below that. I'm 69 and I am on pills for high blood pressure.

I was referred to a gym with NHS trained (on a short course I presume) personal trainers. I told mine of the recommendation of my doctor to be told that she wanted me to keep to an average of 135, give or take, and a maximum of 140. That conforms to the gym's guidelines, presumably for insurance purposes. After going through a few exercise she raised the top limit to 145 although this will have to be 'revisited'.

It makes it difficult to work up a sweat (except during the last few days when the aircon struggled a bit) until I've been at it for 20 mins.

Over the last few weeks up been able to up the ramp on the treadmill and pressure on the stationary bike before hitting the wall. One 'problem' is that my peak now comes later into the exercise so there's a temptation to up the ramp early on but this worries me a bit. If it is bad for me later in the routine, why is it better early on?

It seems a crude way of judging safe exercise for a bloke my age, but then I suppose other options would take time and cost a bit, and at my age they probably think I'm not worth the investment.

[drmark]

Derek Smith said:

I've been told by a doctor that I should not go over 155 whilst exercising in a gym and that my average should be around 10 beats below that. I'm 69 and I am on pills for high blood pressure.

I was referred to a gym with NHS trained (on a short course I presume) personal trainers. I told mine of the recommendation of my doctor to be told that she wanted me to keep to an average of 135, give or take, and a maximum of 140. That conforms to the gym's guidelines, presumably for insurance purposes. After going through a few exercise she raised the top limit to 145 although this will have to be 'revisited'.

It makes it difficult to work up a sweat (except during the last few days when the aircon struggled a bit) until I've been at it for 20 mins.

Over the last few weeks up been able to up the ramp on the treadmill and pressure on the stationary bike before hitting the wall. One 'problem' is that my peak now comes later into the exercise so there's a temptation to up the ramp early on but this worries me a bit. If it is bad for me later in the routine, why is it better early on?

It seems a crude way of judging safe exercise for a bloke my age, but then I suppose other options would take time and cost a bit, and at my age they probably think I'm not worth the investment.

There is no clever / expensive way that works for everyone. Risk - from electrical issues causing arrest, or shearing forces dislodging a plaque and causing a heart attack - rises with rate. At 69 and with high BP, and starting a new programme, you just have to start slowly. As you build fitness you will have to do more more to reach the 145 max, but it takes weeks.

And the longer you spend at the upper reaches of your range, the better training effect. So try raising the treadmill earlier in the workout, and if your heart rate rises too high towards the end, lower it / slow down. Better this way way than just peaking at the end.

[Spydaman]

Making progress on the C25K and have now completed week 4. Still a bit concerned about Mrs Spydaman's heart rate as it goes up to juat over 160bpm after jogging for 5 minutes. According to the 220 minus her age her maximum is 170bpm. Should I be concerned? Does she need to get herself checked before moving on to week 5 and running further? I feel fine but she seems to be struggling.

[okgo]

Spydaman said:

Making progress on the C25K and have now completed week 4. Still a bit concerned about Mrs Spydaman's heart rate as it goes up to juat over 160bpm after jogging for 5 minutes. According to the 220 minus her age her maximum is 170bpm. Should I be concerned? Does she need to get herself checked before moving on to week 5 and running further? I feel fine but she seems to be struggling.

Did you not read any of the above?

[Foliage]

Spydaman said:

Making progress on the C25K and have now completed week 4. Still a bit concerned about Mrs Spydaman's heart rate as it goes up to juat over 160bpm after jogging for 5 minutes. According to the 220 minus her age her maximum is 170bpm. Should I be concerned? Does she need to get herself checked before moving on to week 5 and running further? I feel fine but she seems to be struggling.

160 is less than 170 by a significant margin. Im not a doctor but I wouldn't worry about it. As she get fitter her heart rate should come down (maybe), that's what matters, her heart will get stronger, it will get slower while resting too she will feel better, if she feels she wants to run slower then she should BUT she needs to stick with it, or are you and her looking for excuses to stop because its too hard and you cant do it? coz that's how it seems to me.

C25K is so so so easy, just stick with it, you don't have to go fast its about being about to run for 30minutes without stopping, you probably wont be covering 5k by the end of it, so you need to increase the time to hit the distance then at that stage you need to get quicker to bring the time down, which you should be in no rush to do and can be done gradually over months (yes I did it a couple of years ago, still run 3/4 times a week and my times are still awful)

Running too slow is bad but that's running at a walking pace. Just stick with it.

[Spydaman]

Thanks for the helpful reply. We're not looking for reasons to stop but don't want to do any damage if she's not ready to move onto week 5.

[Smitters]

Two points I would make regards your concern over the OH's heart rate - firstly, how does she feel when it's 160? Pounding out of her chest and about to die, or happily running?

Secondly, some HR monitors can cross signals, so running close together can give false readings. I suspect you've been at it long enough to have run separately once or twice, but it's worth a thought. I was walking up a hill with a mate and showing a reading of 230 odd a few years back... that being his and my hr on my monitor!

ETA - for what it's worth, I'm a high HR person too - mid-30's, so the traditional formulas say max of ~ 180 but I can easily go over 190. 180 is about the HR of a flat out KM and sustainable for several minutes for me. As others have said, we're all different, which is nice.

Edited by Smitters on Thursday 8th September 10:06

[Zod]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Pretty similar here and I'm six years older than you. RHR is high 50s though. I used to hit way over 200 on the Concept 2 in my 20s, but don't go over early 190s at peak now.