A question for the Cardio experts..........

[JimB.]

Hey folks !

I have a couple of questions regarding heart rate & exercise that has me perplexed & confused.............OK, here goes.

A VERY brief history - I'll be 50 next month

I've always been pretty healthy & relatively thin. Currently 6'1" and about 205#. I would like to be about 10 - 12# lighter, but food is my enemy.

I've been running in quantity for about 2 years after a long period of weight training with little cardio.

Currently, my resting HR is about 60. If I'm REALLY relaxed, about 54.

According to the "standard" formula of 220 - age, my max HR should be about 170. Pretty easy so far, right?

Well, here is the kicker. My HR is high. WAY high. When I am running easy, my HR averages around 150 - 160 (without feeling very winded). When I am doing interval training, my HR can get up into the upper 180's. I THINK (or am hoping) that this is an indicator of very good cardiovascular health. Am I correct in this assumption?

Just to add, I am a HazMat teech at work & have had 2 full blown stress tests in the last 2 years with no adverse findings. In fact, last year I had some sort of nuclear scan to go with it & the Dr. said my heart was in really good shape. I am just a bit perplexed about the high rate with exercise. My HR recovers pretty quickly too.

BTW, just to add, I'm not really fast. If I average 9:30 miles I am happy as a clam. I can average over 17 mph on my bike on long rides

That's it. Opinions? Comments? TIA!!

 

[Calcio]

Hello Jim

This is a 51 year old male talking here. Plus I'm a Doctor, but unfortunately for you the degree is a PhD in Finance. So perhaps I'm qualified to play a Doctor on TV .

My heart rate at rest is almost identical to yours, just below 60 most of the time, and occasionally at that 54 you talk about. I'm hoping I can get to the point that my at rest heart rate is more than my age. I don't know what you win for that, but it sounds pretty cool.

Finally my training pace is about 9:30 per mile (when not injured), and I race up to 10 miles just under 9 mpm, so we're real close there as well. And like you I would love dearly, or pay good money to be 10 pounds lighter.

That's it for the similarities. Your question is about heart race under training conditions, and there we differ a lot. When I run easy I'm around 140 per minute, and when working hard it's around 160, so your rate is pretty high compared to mine.

Given your other descriptions of yourself I suspect you are more fit cardiovascularly than I am, which should mean your heart can carry a higher load than mine. A really good test is the recovery you talk about. Run hard and drive your heart rate up, take the rate. Wait 60 seconds and see what your recovery is. When I was playing soccer in college (in the 1970's dear lord, how did that happen?) I could push it up to 180 and in 60 seconds it would come down to 120, which satisfied our trainers that I was really fit. If you at age 49 can get a similar 60 beats per minute recover, then you are wicked fit. For me, I am getting about 25 beats per minute of recovery in 60 seconds, from the 140's to about 120, and at my age I'm happy to declare victory with that.

So it seems to me you are really CV fit, and your ability to recover from max heart rate in 60 seconds to a significantly lower rate would indicate that.

And I would talk to my physician about all of this (notice all PhD's call their doctors physicians!) to see if he or she concurs. I suspect the recovery you experience will thrill him or her.

Thanks for the data, it's more proof that even as we get older we can still get into the game.

Craig

 

[3DisneyKids]

I tend to be on the high side as well (even at rest). But I have always gone by "perceived exertion" rate in addition to monitoring my heart rate. And in that regard, I think you are doing great.

 

[windwalker]

My heart rate is very similar to yours. I'm 56 and when I'm really walking fast, sub 10 min per mile pace I get into the 180s also. My cruise pace 12 mpm puts me about 140 and 10:54 puts me around the 153 range. I to recover fast. One lap takes me from 180s down to below 120.

I talked to one of my cardiologist patients and he said if I'm not getting any distress from the high rates then it means I'm very fit.

The rule opf thumb subtract your age from 220 is not accurate for a very fit person.

Heart Beat Panda

 

[windwalker]

Since I had a HRM on the treadmill I was using I played with it a little. I did my last mile walking a 11:06 min per mile pace and my heart rate at the end was 163. I dropped to 3 mph pace and rate went to 119 by the end of the cool down lap.

Walking Panda

 

[rKyDeX]

Jim

I've been doing heart rate training for a couple of years now. I'm 48 and my resting heart rate is 52 bpm. My highest recorded believable heart rate has consistently been 185 bpm. I don't think your max rate is too high.

The 220 minus age doesn't work for me, or for anyone that I've talked to. From what I've read, the maximum heart rate is not an indication of cardiac health or lack thereof - but instead it can be judged by resting heart rate and recovery rate.

I use the following heart rates when running:

70%(145 bpm) max for recovery ceiling/slow runs
85%(165 bpm) min for threshold floor/speed work

75%(152 bpm) first 20 miles of a marathon - below aerobic/anerobic threshold
80%(158 bpm) first 10 miles of a half - below aerobic/anerobic threshold
85%(165 bpm) for 10k
90%(172 bpm) for 5k

The formula for determining percentages is rate = (% x (max -min)) + min

By the way, fast is all just relative. If I can meet the heart rate that I intend, then I'm fast. Sometimes it relates to a fast pace and sometimes it doesn't. There are internal and external factors that can have a huge effect on your heart rate at any given time. My goals are always base on heart rate, not pace.

Good luck with your heart rate training

Chester
W.I.S.H. Half-Fast Heart Rate Marathon Team