Max Heart Rate when working out - too high?

[BigJonMcQuimm]

Hi

I workout twice a day, in total about 2.5hs 6 days a week.

I am a gym class addict - and love pushing myself. I only do cardio HITT based sessions really.

Curious I have just started monitoring my heart rate, as a side product result of buying a new altimeter.

Is there a too high BPM zone to work out in? In the HITT class today I hit 203BPM. Another class, 196. Graph attached of the 203 sesh this evening:-



I start the monitor after warm up.

I am 39, 60 kg, 8.5% bf.

thanks for the advice

[E65Ross]

Wouldn't worry about it. We're all different. I've been a lifelong runner, now cyclist and I'm only 27....I've never had my heart rate go over 175 despite pushing as hard as possible. Resting heart rate under 50.

Don't worry about it!

[Monty Python]

A rough calculation for your maximum heart rate is 220 - your age, so in your case 181.

http://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/heartrat...

[BigJonMcQuimm]

Monty Python said:

A rough calculation for your maximum heart rate is 220 - your age, so in your case 181.

http://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/heartrat...

Apparently it is a very rough estimate.

My concern is that I could be pushing my heart too much.

Heart disease runs in the family.

I guess a trip to the quacks is necessary!

[Twistygit]

Is the hrm a wrist sensor because these tend to be inaccurate, maybe try a different monitor just to make sure, ( a friends maybe that is known to be ok)

[Monty Python]

BigJonMcQuimm said:

Apparently it is a very rough estimate.

My concern is that I could be pushing my heart too much.

Heart disease runs in the family.

I guess a trip to the quacks is necessary!

It may be a "rough" calculation but it's what almost everyone uses:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/Physic...

Even a "revised" calculation still puts MHR in the same ballpark

http://www.maxworkouts.com/articles/entry/is-the-m...

Based on what I've read, you're pushing it a bit too far. Since you clearly do a lot of exercise I'd have expected your MHR to be lower as your heart adapts to your exercise regime. The fact that it's hitting over 200 suggests there could be an underlying problem with your cardiovascular system such that your heart needs to beat faster to maintain the required blood supply.

I don't to a lot of exercise, but after 10 miles on my bike at around 19mph my heart rate is usually around 180, which for my age is almost spot on.

[Cybertronian]

My max heart rate is around 206/207 based on a hill rep test I did last year some time. Using that generic calculation of 220 minus my age (32) would give me 188, robbing me of almost 20 bpm, which is a lot of extra headroom as a long distance runner.

One caveat I'll point out is the fitter you become, the harder it is to reach your max heart rate without an outright test to try and get there. The body adapts and you end up being able to do much more with the same available resources.

If it gives you peace of mind due to your family history, get checked out but I wouldn't overtly worry about hitting your max so often, and it's good that you're monitoring it.

Edited by Cybertronian on Thursday 7th April 09:41

[SHutchinson]

9.5 stone? How tall are you?

It's not relevant to your post, I'm just trying to work out what you look like.

[battered]

9.5st and 8.5% bodyfat = thin. Not unhealthy but towards thin end of acceptable range.

I used to be similar when I was in my 20s and 30s, I'm 5'6 and back then was 28 or 30 waist, 36-38 chest. I was healthy enough, as I'm sure is the OP. Minimum healthy weight/BMI for my size is about 9st.

[BigJonMcQuimm]

Twistygit said:

Is the hrm a wrist sensor because these tend to be inaccurate, maybe try a different monitor just to make sure, ( a friends maybe that is known to be ok)

No it is a Suunto - and uses a chest band.

Seems pretty accurate when I cross reference it.

[BigJonMcQuimm]

SHutchinson said:

9.5 stone? How tall are you?

It's not relevant to your post, I'm just trying to work out what you look like.

5'8 - 1% extra muscle on the upper torso according to one of those body fat stand on bare footed and grip machines at my local gym.

[boyse7en]

Monty Python said:

It may be a "rough" calculation but it's what almost everyone uses:

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/Physic...

Even a "revised" calculation still puts MHR in the same ballpark

http://www.maxworkouts.com/articles/entry/is-the-m...

Based on what I've read, you're pushing it a bit too far. Since you clearly do a lot of exercise I'd have expected your MHR to be lower as your heart adapts to your exercise regime. The fact that it's hitting over 200 suggests there could be an underlying problem with your cardiovascular system such that your heart needs to beat faster to maintain the required blood supply.

I don't to a lot of exercise, but after 10 miles on my bike at around 19mph my heart rate is usually around 180, which for my age is almost spot on.

As far as I'm aware your Max HR has nothing to do with how fit you are, and will not change with more exercise.

As your family has a history of heart issues it is worth getting a doctor to check you over, but I wouldn't worry unduly. The 220-age is an average calculation. A significant number of people will fall well outside that.
I was running regularly, and on a 10k race my HR would be 175-180 for most of the race (I was 40) and would peak at around 205bpm over the last few hundred yards - well over my calculated "maximum" of 180bpm.

[Monty Python]

boyse7en said:

As far as I'm aware your Max HR has nothing to do with how fit you are, and will not change with more exercise.

As your family has a history of heart issues it is worth getting a doctor to check you over, but I wouldn't worry unduly. The 220-age is an average calculation. A significant number of people will fall well outside that.
I was running regularly, and on a 10k race my HR would be 175-180 for most of the race (I was 40) and would peak at around 205bpm over the last few hundred yards - well over my calculated "maximum" of 180bpm.

Generally, the more you exercise the stronger and more efficient your heart becomes. Thus, when your body requires more oxygen the heart doesn't need to beat as fast to supply it. As with everything it's not a hard and fast rule - it won't happen with everyone.

[addey]

Monty Python said:

boyse7en said:

As far as I'm aware your Max HR has nothing to do with how fit you are, and will not change with more exercise.

As your family has a history of heart issues it is worth getting a doctor to check you over, but I wouldn't worry unduly. The 220-age is an average calculation. A significant number of people will fall well outside that.
I was running regularly, and on a 10k race my HR would be 175-180 for most of the race (I was 40) and would peak at around 205bpm over the last few hundred yards - well over my calculated "maximum" of 180bpm.

Generally, the more you exercise the stronger and more efficient your heart becomes. Thus, when your body requires more oxygen the heart doesn't need to beat as fast to supply it. As with everything it's not a hard and fast rule - it won't happen with everyone.

Yes, at sub-max levels your heart may well become more efficient, but as boyse7en said your Max heart rate is largely unaffected by fitness levels. Are you a medical professional Monty Python because some of the stuff you've written on this thread is quite misleading!

In response to the OP, the main concern with regularly working out at such high %'s of your Max is that it may lead to overtraining, i.e. you may find your fitness regresses and you may well find yourself more susceptible to illness etc. I'd suggest more variety in your training and/or training intensity.

[Monty Python]

addey said:

Yes, at sub-max levels your heart may well become more efficient, but as boyse7en said your Max heart rate is largely unaffected by fitness levels. Are you a medical professional Monty Python because some of the stuff you've written on this thread is quite misleading!

In response to the OP, the main concern with regularly working out at such high %'s of your Max is that it may lead to overtraining, i.e. you may find your fitness regresses and you may well find yourself more susceptible to illness etc. I'd suggest more variety in your training and/or training intensity.

Apologies - I should have qualified that - the effect is most pronounced under resting conditions. However, because MHR varies so much, unless it's measured you don't know what it is:

http://www.cyclingsupports.com/en/2016/02/12/0-6-m...

[ikarl]

I've seen my MHR at 195 many years ago whilst on the cross-trainer. I thought that was high as it was at the extreme of my physical ability.

[CarlosFandango11]

Monty Python said:

addey said:

Yes, at sub-max levels your heart may well become more efficient, but as boyse7en said your Max heart rate is largely unaffected by fitness levels. Are you a medical professional Monty Python because some of the stuff you've written on this thread is quite misleading!

In response to the OP, the main concern with regularly working out at such high %'s of your Max is that it may lead to overtraining, i.e. you may find your fitness regresses and you may well find yourself more susceptible to illness etc. I'd suggest more variety in your training and/or training intensity.

Apologies - I should have qualified that - the effect is most pronounced under resting conditions. However, because MHR varies so much, unless it's measured you don't know what it is:

http://www.cyclingsupports.com/en/2016/02/12/0-6-m...

Your link contradicts some of the rubbish you've posted on this thread.

Any chance that you stop posting more rubbish?

[WestyCarl]

Unless you have an underlying heart problem (get a doc's check) you cannot "break" you heart by revving it too much

Max heart rate isn't a good measure of fitness, resting heart rate is better (but still not good). Heart Rate Variability is about the best measure using the heart rate and this is what most HRM's use to calculate recovery, fitness, etc

[CarlosFandango11]

BigJonMcQuimm said:

Monty Python said:

A rough calculation for your maximum heart rate is 220 - your age, so in your case 181.

http://www.active.com/fitness/calculators/heartrat...

Apparently it is a very rough estimate.

My concern is that I could be pushing my heart too much.

Heart disease runs in the family.

I guess a trip to the quacks is necessary!

It's more a rough line of best fit through some data points. The key point is that most people won't be on this line, and some people will be a significant distance from this line.

I'm a similar age to you and the maximum heart rate that I have reached is 197 - I don't think I could get to 203 though. A friend of mine is in his early forties and his heart rate easily goes over 200...

[Monty Python]

CarlosFandango11 said:

Your link contradicts some of the rubbish you've posted on this thread.

Any chance that you stop posting more rubbish?

I think I will - clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll go sit in the corner.