Discussion
mcelliott said:
Crasher242 said:
Quite a timely thread for me...
I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
Can't see the problem?I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
patient - I'm worried, I did a run, ran more than I've done before, and my HR was high and my Garmin is telling me to just rest for a bit
GP - erm, and?
E65Ross said:
mcelliott said:
Crasher242 said:
Quite a timely thread for me...
I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
Can't see the problem?I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
patient - I'm worried, I did a run, ran more than I've done before, and my HR was high and my Garmin is telling me to just rest for a bit
GP - erm, and?
A few thoughts to supplement what others have already said or touched upon:
You need to do something like a hill repeat test to eke out your maximum. Something like a warm-up and then around 5x sprints up a 50m hill should do the trick. If there's no change between your 4th and 5th rep, take that as your maximum.
Having a high maximum heart rate doesn't necessarily mean anything, per se. There will be people with lower maximum heart rates than you that will be much faster and stronger, and there will be people with a higher maximum heart rate than you who are not as fast or strong. A high lactate threshold with a low resting heart rate is far more useful in the world of endurance sports.
As you age, you generally lose around a beat or two per year.
Don't rely on your device's optical heart rate sensor for an accurate measurement. You need a chest monitor which senses for electrical signals, and even these can be a few beats out if it's very cold and dry, or if there's poor contact with your skin.
If you are ill, or becoming ill, you can often reach your maximum heart rate more quickly as your body is trying to fight something off (your resting heart rate will also be more elevated than normal). Similarly, if you are unfit or less trained, you will hit your maximum heart rate sooner.
You need to do something like a hill repeat test to eke out your maximum. Something like a warm-up and then around 5x sprints up a 50m hill should do the trick. If there's no change between your 4th and 5th rep, take that as your maximum.
Having a high maximum heart rate doesn't necessarily mean anything, per se. There will be people with lower maximum heart rates than you that will be much faster and stronger, and there will be people with a higher maximum heart rate than you who are not as fast or strong. A high lactate threshold with a low resting heart rate is far more useful in the world of endurance sports.
As you age, you generally lose around a beat or two per year.
Don't rely on your device's optical heart rate sensor for an accurate measurement. You need a chest monitor which senses for electrical signals, and even these can be a few beats out if it's very cold and dry, or if there's poor contact with your skin.
If you are ill, or becoming ill, you can often reach your maximum heart rate more quickly as your body is trying to fight something off (your resting heart rate will also be more elevated than normal). Similarly, if you are unfit or less trained, you will hit your maximum heart rate sooner.
mcelliott said:
E65Ross said:
mcelliott said:
Crasher242 said:
Quite a timely thread for me...
I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
Can't see the problem?I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
patient - I'm worried, I did a run, ran more than I've done before, and my HR was high and my Garmin is telling me to just rest for a bit
GP - erm, and?
Mrs C was the one worried - and as I could probably do with a checkup/MOT having hit 50, i can see some positives to getting it done.
I've found HR is kinda useless. I get a better idea just from feeling. Prior a relay triathlon I did some 30 min max efforts on bicycle - 185 or so bpm.
During event looking to use this for pacing... I start off at like 205bpm for the first 5-10mins. I realise this and drop it... feels like soft pedalling so I upped it again. In the end I avg'd 200bpm for 28 mins. Could I do that outside an event? Unlikely, I don't have the mental motivation.
My max HR is 208. I'm not 12.
During event looking to use this for pacing... I start off at like 205bpm for the first 5-10mins. I realise this and drop it... feels like soft pedalling so I upped it again. In the end I avg'd 200bpm for 28 mins. Could I do that outside an event? Unlikely, I don't have the mental motivation.
My max HR is 208. I'm not 12.
Crasher242 said:
Quite a timely thread for me...
I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
I'm fairly certain that a Doctor would not be willing to push you beyond the theoretical MHR of 220-Age when doing a Bruce test. I tried on my last one and got shot down despite being comfortable when reaching my target HR.I completed my local parkrun on saturday (my 4th run), and the first time i have actually run it all the way through (i am only 4 months into this running malarkey). When i finished i noted my HR on my garmin watch (i was wearing the HR strap) was reading 183 - i'm 51 years old.
I thought this was a bit alarming, however i didnt feel ill or anything - just a bit knackered from the run.
I've seen my HR go over 200 back in my days as a road cyclist (doing TT's and hill climbs etc), but i was in my 40s then.
My garmin suggested that i ought to rest for 72 hours - so assume that i did overstretch a bit on the run, but i know my wife was a little concerned at the HR reading - again all either of us had to go by was the old 220 minus your age.
As a reference, when i have been doing my run training on the treadmill, i can happily run within a good 150-170 range for extended periods of time (40-50 mins) without feeling any real issue.
I know that it is all down to the individual physique, fitness levels, weight, hight etc, so know really that there cant be a blanket measure that fits all.
I think i'd like to book myself in for one of those active ECG tests that you can do, just to get myself properly checked out.
The last thing they need is to have somebody die because they didn't follow defined practices.
Jakarta said:
I'm fairly certain that a Doctor would not be willing to push you beyond the theoretical MHR of 220-Age when doing a Bruce test. I tried on my last one and got shot down despite being comfortable when reaching my target HR.
The last thing they need is to have somebody die because they didn't follow defined practices.
220-Age is not the theoretical MHR.The last thing they need is to have somebody die because they didn't follow defined practices.
I'd really like to find mine out again. Trouble is the last time I found out, I was 15 maybe, and to find it we had to do a 7x200m step test (this is swimming). You basically start the first 200 at PB +30 I think. Then you reduce by 5 seconds each time so on the last one your target is your PB. But as the repeat time was only like 5 minutes or so...yeah.
The first 2 are quite easy. Most people actually stop getting any faster by about the 4th one but the point really is just putting in the effort. And then it's just sheer pain after that. It's the only time I've ever finished a set and felt truly ill. At the time my max HR recorded on a polar monitor was just around 220.
I'm 33 now and We did do 6x100 max on 5 minutes the other day and I have to say. I thought my heart was gonna pop. No idea on the HR though, I couldn't think that well! Wouldn't be surprised if it's still >200 as that's what it felt like!
The first 2 are quite easy. Most people actually stop getting any faster by about the 4th one but the point really is just putting in the effort. And then it's just sheer pain after that. It's the only time I've ever finished a set and felt truly ill. At the time my max HR recorded on a polar monitor was just around 220.
I'm 33 now and We did do 6x100 max on 5 minutes the other day and I have to say. I thought my heart was gonna pop. No idea on the HR though, I couldn't think that well! Wouldn't be surprised if it's still >200 as that's what it felt like!
CarlosFandango11 said:
220-Age is not the theoretical MHR.
Have you read any of the previous comments in this thread you raging socket?Have you ever done a BRUCE test?
The applied theory by Doctors who perform these tests outside of a research facility is 220 minus your age. End of story!
Everyone in here has advocated that it is easily surpassed, myself included.
Jakarta said:
CarlosFandango11 said:
220-Age is not the theoretical MHR.
Have you read any of the previous comments in this thread you raging socket?Have you ever done a BRUCE test?
The applied theory by Doctors who perform these tests outside of a research facility is 220 minus your age. End of story!
Everyone in here has advocated that it is easily surpassed, myself included.
A theory needs to be well-substantiated, based on a body of facts that have been confirmed through observation and experiment. Hence 220-Age is not a theoretical MHR.
MHRs can also be less than what 220-Age would calculate. Not everyone can easily surpass the 220-Age value, and plenty of posters here not claimed that it is easily surpassed.
Plenty of information available on the accuracy of estimating MHR from formulae based on age if you care to search:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Maximum_h...
Edited by CarlosFandango11 on Thursday 24th January 15:51
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff