Heart Rate Monitor Training Questions

[tommy]

I bought a heart rate monitor over the holidays and have use it once. It's a Polar RS100.

I'm curious what % calculation y'all use.

I've seen a simple method whereby you subtract your age from 220 to get your maximum heart rate "MHR". All other rates are a % of that MHR. So for example I'm 51. My MHR is 169. 60% is 101. But this doesn't take resting rate into account at all. Is it too simple?

Another calculation is MHR = 217 - (.85 age). Then subtract the resting heart rate "RHR" to get working heart rate "WHR". The % then is the % of WHR added back to the RHR. You still with me? So in my case:
MHR = 217-(.85x51) = 174.
RHR is 55 (check it in the morning, varies from 52-58).
WHR = MHR-RHR = 174-55 = 119.
Then 60% is 60% of WHR+RHR =(.60x119) + 55 = 126.
That's a whole lot different than 101.
101 seems too low for any benefit.

What do you think?
Are there other calculations?
Is MHR a maximum limit guideline or is it a theoretical performance capability?
Any other tips for the HRM? Books or good web sites for HR training?

Thanks.

 

[mim]

Maximum heart rate

Maximum heart rate

I had the same confusion, the best article I found about the subject is this one http://www.athletictrainingservices.com/MHR.htm I use the heart rate monitor to see my improvement.

 

[MarkU]

The formulas are guidelines at best. There are too many individual factors involved to make them completely accurate.
When I got my heart rate monitor last year I did some actual performance testing with a certified USAT triathlon coach on a bike Computrainer to determine my max HR (kind of like a stress test). My actual numbers are about 10 bpm off the 220 - age formula.
My coach has me following Joe Friel's training program in The Triathlete's Training Bible. Most of the base training is in zone 2, which does seem super slow, but in theory is the best way to build aerobic endurance and burn fat.

 

[BillCobit]

Is it too simple?

101 seems too low for any benefit.

Is MHR a maximum limit guideline or is it a theoretical performance capability?

Hi Tom

IMO:

• yes
• agreed
• maybe
• probably

There seems to be a lot of heart rate variability among athletes at all ages. The only trend I'm confident of is that the better athletes have lower heart rates at faster speeds of cycling, running, etc.

Book formulas may be a useful starting point, but then you have to figure out your own formulas.

I don't have much interest in revving my HR to max except for a stress test. I think my actual max is only a little higher than my 220-age max - maybe 10 beats or so. If I follow the book formulas for target HR, I never get above a brisk walk

Over time I've found what works for me, and have a sense of how long I can sustain aerobic exercise for a given HR range. So if I'm in a race, I can eyeball my HRM and know whether or not I am overcooking myself; I find perceived exertion to be less reliable when adrenalin is thrown into the mix.

BTW - my expression "overcooking" does not mean flirting w/ death. What I'm talking about is spending too much time at elevated rates such that you get heart rate drift to levels that are too uncomfortable to sustain despite modest physical exertion. For example, probably what you would experience at mile 10 of a marathon if you tried to run it at your 10K pace. You could slow down to marathon pace at that point, but would likely find that your heart was revving higher than normal for that pace (& therefore feel like cr@p). I ignored my HRM for long stretches on the bike at Lake Placid, then found I couldn't get my HR under control for the run. So you can't just WEAR it, you also have to PAY ATTENTION to it

Enjoy the new gadget.

Best wishes for an early spring.

 

[MarkU]

I think my actual max is only a little higher than my 220-age max - maybe 10 beats or so. If I follow the book formulas for target HR, I never get above a brisk walk

The Computrainer testing I did showed my HRmax to be 10bpm or so higher than the formulas. If I had tried to exercise in zone 2 (65-75% of HRmax) using the formulas I would literally just be walking. As it was, when I first started HR training, I did have to frequently slow down to a slow trot/shuffle to keep my HR in range, especially on long runs. It takes time for this type of training to take effect. After six to nine months, I noticed that I was a lot fresher at the end of my runs and was having less leg soreness. After nearly a year, I am now finding that I am having to pick up my pace to keep my HR up in range - the opposite problem I had when I started out last year.
The downside is that I've trained myself to run slowly (but efficiently) over long distances. I now need to start incorporating some speed work into my routine (tempo runs, intervals, etc.)

 

[DLH]

I am 41 and cycle, I set my MHR at 180 and train between 130 and 165. I some times go near MHR when sprinting or climbing, but usually pay for it and have to back off to recover from lactic acid build-up. My monitor keeps my average and mine is usually 155 after my workout. After using the monitor for a while you will be able to determine where you need to be and when you are to high or to low for your best performance. It is a great tool to use and if you stick with it you will learn how to pace yourself better. I know a lot of people who have bought one and don't stick with it for whatever reason. I use mine on every ride.

DLH

 

[Mary]

I was always told 220-age (53)=167 Maximum 85% of 167=142; Minimum 65%=109 BPM
I think the 109 is way too low; 142 is low also, but I'm following it.

The pool where I swim has a chart posted which compares rates for when you're exercising on land or in the water. I never pay attention to it, but maybe I should.

 

[tommy]

Great responses. Thanks everyone. Here are my "take-aways":

1. MHR or HRmax is a biological limit, not a safety limit. Regardless, who wants/needs to exercise at the limit (even if you could sustain it for more than a minute or two )?

2. MHR is theoretical and varies with the individual. One should find a starting point and learn your own body's response.

3. In good health and fitness, one may find him/her self above the formulas. Of the 2 formulas I listed, they are 5 BPM apart at the top and 25 BPM apart at the bottom. I'll start with the higher formula (more complicated - cause that's the kind of guy I am ), but reduce the lower end a bit to avoid overcooking.

4. Although "overcooking" is a new word for me, I've probably been doing it . Overcooking in training might explain my performing below endurance expectations in running and triathlon events despite extensive long runs: ( . It also might explain my propensity for muscle stiffness - calves and hamstrings . I'm sure glad that I alternated walking and jogging in my last marathon or I wouldn't have mad it at all.

5. You have to use it to be beneficial. Duhhhhhhhh. That may sound simplistic, but I need to use the monitor as a tool to change my behavior, rather than just using the thing to observe my behavior.

6. DLH, if you don't build up lactic acid until approaching 180 BPM, you're a stud. (I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy. )

7. The most interesting (disappointing) thing for all of us, including non-athletes, is that there may be sufficient variability in MHR that some stress tests may not be valid because the individual didn't get high enough.

Now here's some good news discovered in my first bicycle ride using the monitor. I set the limits at 125 and 145. During a long, steady, shallow climb at 12-13 MPH, it took me about 3/4 mile to reach 145. The good news is that when coasting down the other side, I dropped to below 125 in about 10-15 seconds.

Thanks again ya'll. Feel free to add more.

 

[Quantum]

I'm intrigued that you folk seem not to have any concerns regarding the bond integrity between your prosthesis and your tissue and are willing to push your HR limits.
The agreement with my surgeon is to limit my exercise HR to 140 (max was ~185 prior to realising that I was playing Russian Roulette with a 5cm aneurism of the ascending aorta) and keep the duration at this level to <40 minutes. This conservatism relates to bond integrity of my Dacron aortic graft to my aorta which may not be a factor for you guys(?).

Rod
Ex marathoner, cyclist

 

[BillCobit]

I'm intrigued that you folk seem not to have any concerns regarding the bond integrity between your prosthesis and your tissue and are willing to push your HR limits.
The agreement with my surgeon is to limit my exercise HR to 140 (max was ~185 prior to realising that I was playing Russian Roulette with a 5cm aneurism of the ascending aorta) and keep the duration at this level to <40 minutes. This conservatism relates to bond integrity of my Dacron aortic graft to my aorta which may not be a factor for you guys(?).

Rod
Ex marathoner, cyclist

Welcome, Rod. Maybe we are a reckless bunch. ( http://www.valvereplacement.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11738&highlight=@pcray )

Document excerpt referenced is from:

http://www.acc.org/clinical/bethesda/beth36/index.pdf

which you may be interested in if you have not seen it.

The general conclusion amongst us is that there is very little documented as a scientific body of knowledge regarding post-surg exercise guidelines and underlying scientific rationale. But many of us are keenly interested in any publications addressing this topic. Do you have an references to support the 140 BPM x 40 minutes recommendation? I'm not challenging it as sound medical advice, just wondering if it's a sensible intuitive guideline vs. one based on physiology and clilnical observation.

I've got a polyester annuloplasty ring (vs. aortic graft), but both my cardiologist and surgeon know what I do, and neither seem concerned about it. It could be that they're looking at a 4-year post op history of activity w/ no ill effects. I believe that the integrity of a tissue/suture/synthetic bond is also varies by individual - but I don't think there's any way to predict or evaluate that after surgery (unless the patch job starts deteriorating). It could be that my docs look at my echo and ECG results at then end of 4 years and conclude that my exercise regimen must be OK if I haven't killed myself yet.

ANyway, welcome to the club. Always nice to have another active valver on board. Plse drop in again soon.

Cheers,

Timebomb Bill

 

[tommy]

My cardiologist was a marathoner in his youth. He had every chance to discourage me from a marathon and specifically did not when I brought it up. We didn't discuss maximum heart rate, but he knows the "turf".

Still I see no reason for me to ever approach HRmax (but feel certain that I have done so on occasion).

 

[Quantum]

Welcome, Rod. Maybe we are a reckless bunch. ( http://www.valvereplacement.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11738&highlight=@pcray )

Document excerpt referenced is from:

http://www.acc.org/clinical/bethesda/beth36/index.pdf

which you may be interested in if you have not seen it.

The general conclusion amongst us is that there is very little documented as a scientific body of knowledge regarding post-surg exercise guidelines and underlying scientific rationale. But many of us are keenly interested in any publications addressing this topic. Do you have an references to support the 140 BPM x 40 minutes recommendation? I'm not challenging it as sound medical advice, just wondering if it's a sensible intuitive guideline vs. one based on physiology and clilnical observation.

I've got a polyester annuloplasty ring (vs. aortic graft), but both my cardiologist and surgeon know what I do, and neither seem concerned about it. It could be that they're looking at a 4-year post op history of activity w/ no ill effects. I believe that the integrity of a tissue/suture/synthetic bond is also varies by individual - but I don't think there's any way to predict or evaluate that after surgery (unless the patch job starts deteriorating). It could be that my docs look at my echo and ECG results at then end of 4 years and conclude that my exercise regimen must be OK if I haven't killed myself yet.

ANyway, welcome to the club. Always nice to have another active valver on board. Plse drop in again soon.

Cheers,

Timebomb Bill

Hi Bill,
Thanks for the links; I note the exercise recommendation prior to my surgery from Bonow et al. was class 1A (billiards), while for many years I was operating well into class IIIC (competitive cycling, running, triathlon). Clearly I'm lucky to be here today writing this post!
Now the rationale for the <140BPM for <40mins is probably based more on my surgeon's conservatism rather than any solid scientific basis, although having said that, he was particularly concerned about extended periods at elevated BP (HR). I must follow this up when I next see him, as maybe there is some research on this.
At the end of the day, these guys probably don't wish to see their good work wasted.

Thanks for the welcome.

Cheers,
Rod

 

[tommy]

Rod,

Your post included 2 things that struck a chord with me.

I'm lucky to be here today writing this post!

That's my perspective every day.
Praise the Lord and pass the Bodyglide!

At the end of the day, these guys probably don't wish to see their good work wasted.

This cuts both ways. The product of their good work is living life to the fullest.

Surely it pays to be conservative in the early days/weeks/months after surgery.