Anyone know much about heart rate?

[EnterFunnyNameHere]

(Reposting from chat as no responses)

Having treated myself to a new fitness watch on a "going to be 40 soon so should start trying to get fit" journey, I have questions about heart rate.I think the commonly accepted calculation for max heart rate is 220-age, so about 180 for me, and that you shouldn't spend too much time very close to max. I've just been for a 40min bike ride where I was at about 175 for well over 3/4 of the ride...! Is this a problem? Should I be avoiding this?For what it's worth I have very very minor ("trace") mitral regurgitation which I suspect means my heart isn't that efficient... but I felt at the time, and feel now post ride, completely fine. I was out of breath but could have easily held a brief conversation. I was absolutely not at my limit of endurance. No pain, and aside from feeling like I've done some actual exercise for a change, feel fine now.I'm inclined to think if I feel fine when doing it, to just go by that - but I'd feel pretty damn stupid if I damage my heart inadvertently pushing too hard!Does anyone have any experience on this please?Thanks in advance!

Didn't want your post to go unanswered! I am NOT medical so can't answer about your heart condition but perhaps to reassure you, I am 50 so max heart rate I assume is 170 and I run/jog a bit. I am not very fast and not good at pushing myself but for most of the run, my HR is 160. At the end it goes up to nearly 170. On my Garmin watch, I don't think I even hit the highest zone for any of my runs.

If you didn't have the heart condition, I would think that if you feel ok, you probably are ok but perhaps it would be worth double checking with a GP or someone medical given your situation is a bit more complex?

Hope someone with more knowledge/experience answers too!

I watched a podcast the other week (Diary of a CEO)

And the lady was discussing time in heart rate zones.

She said it is a good idea to get to zone 5 which is up towards max 2/3 times per week.

And then zone 2 around 200/300 mins per week.

So it is ok to do that high heart rate during these exercises if you're really putting your all in.

Also if it's fairly new then the more you do it your likely to get fitter and see your heart rate come down

There are loads of good YouTube videos on heart rate zones. The Running Channel is generally good for easy to understand explanations. I would say it's not dangerous but would probably be better for your overall fitness and to reduce risk of injury to be doing more of your bike rides at a lower Heart rate and doing zone 4-5 on maybe shorter rides or short stretches of a long ride

Have a look at this
https://blog.fitbit.com/max-heart-rate/

I can happily be in " peak" for a while so suspect mine is a bit out, it's based on the average

Thanks all, some interesting thoughts here. The googling I've done just seems a bit confusing - it suggests in your "peak" zone you'd be really pushing yourself/totally out of breath and I'm just... not! And to keep my heart rate in a lower zone I'd be really pootling around, not even feeling like I'm working out at all!

It seems a waste of a GP appointment (if I could even get one) since uts not causing me any issues and I feel fine, but I wonder if it's worth trying to speak to one anyway...

I'm wondering if my true maximum is way above 180, and that's why it all feels a bit "off" in terms of effort vs heart rate...?

Given your history I'd err on the side of caution and check with a GP just in case. That said the 220-age calculation is an estimate and lots of people can achieve actual rates over their theoretical max but you'd normally feel you were working hard as you approach it. E.g. my theoretical max is 173, I can get up to 180 but anything over 170 is a very hard effort. So given what you've said about how hard it feels, my guess would be that you're getting an inaccurate reading - you may want to try tightening the strap, measuring your pulse as a cross-check and consider investing in a chest strap which is much more accurate than sports watches.

I'm 60 and my heart rate when I run is 165-175. That's just a normal 5-10k run where I am very comfortable. Like you I was concerned about this years ago and spent far too much time googling it! The 220-age is just a made up thing and there are several other ways to calculate exercise heart rates, but the main thing is that everyone is different and you may be like me. My resting heart rate is 55-60 and I have low blood pressure, very healthy generally and no heart problems apart from the odd palpitation when I've had too much coffee. This might help https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/health/injury/a760723/qa-im-40-is-a-maximum-heart-rate-of-202-safe/

I am 47 so theroretical Max HR is 173. I'm a runner and in races, that can be my average heart rate. Obviously I am pushing myself in races but not on the verge of collapse or anything. My max is definitely higher than the theoretical max and generally my heart rate is high even when I am doing easy runs where I am chatting to friends. It's normal for me. Go by feel I would say.

Incidentally, my resting heart rate is very low - between 45 and 50 and I often get low heart rate notifications during the night so it's not that I have a high heart rate generally - more that it is just capable of beating faster when it needs to.

Part of it is fitness. Mine comes down massively as I get fitter, even if feel like I'm at the same red sweaty panting stage.

I'm feeling reassured by other posters with the same "issue"! I'm pretty confident on the readings - they are similar to what I used to get from an older fitness watch and also a chest strap HR monitor I had in my late 20s.

I think I'll struggle to get through to a GP but I might give it a go - it will be interesting to see if it changes the longer I work on getting fitter!!

I think you need to consider is that you do have a heart problem. Therefore general advice from others may not be applicable to you. Speak to a medical professional.

1. HR readings from a watch are way off for anything where you grip e.g. riding a bike, or rowing. This also holds for other sports too as the optical sensor for your watch can get somewhat confused e.g. with running cadence. I forgot to put my chest strap on today before going for a run and it was in high 160s, would have been 140-150 with the strap based on last few runs. I'm 42, family history of fairly high heart rate, SVT and a few other funky things. Not diagnosed with any but entirely possible something

2. 220-age is a very rough approximation.

3. Most 'cardio' activity should be done where you could speak a short sentence. This is what is most useful for a healthy heart. Intensity work shouldn't be a high percentage of what you do, and unless you're actually undertaking a programme with a coach for a particular sport, is probably to ignore entirely.

I wear a heart rate monitor (chest strap) for exercise and also a Fitbit and I find that the readings on the two can vary a lot. Many of these gadgets can lack accuracy. The 'talk test' is a good way to check that you're not over exerting yourself, so being able to hold a conversation as you've already mentioned.

I'm also not sure if some of these things need a bit of time to calibrate properly, to know your true resting and max HR. Until this has set correctly then you will likely see some inaccurate readings. The calculation is just an indication, my max is 204 but according to the calculation should be 186.

Always a good idea to speak to your GP though if you can, especially with a heart condition, and get their expert opinion

Thanks all for thoughts. Just to be clear, I have spoken to a GP in general terms when my trace mitral regurgitation was diagnosed - the only thing they said was to mention it in any circumstances where I might end up under general anaesthetic, but aside from that to crack on with life.

That said, I wouldn't have known (to discuss) any specifics of heart rate! But I feel like they might have warned me off extreme exercise if it was a risk? Who knows, I liked the GP I was seeing at the time but they don't always have time to give you all relevant advice...

i was just about to come on and ask a similar question! Thanks for raising OP and everyone for the responses. This has been super helpful in answering my heart rate zone questions (my garmin is telling me I spend most of my time in the maximum training zone but now feeling somewhat reassured I probably have a higher than average max heart rate).

Even with a high rate, the zones are calculated using the resting as well and so you really shouldn't be spending a lot of time in it. Cut back on the intensity

Are you sure about this? It's just % of the maximum isn't it?

No. It isn't

Some calculators do look just at the max heart rate but it's much better to take account of resting heart rate too - 80 means a different level of exertion for someone with a resting heart rate in the 40s or someone with a resting heart rate in the 80s.

Just if anyone is still interested, I reworked the zones based on heart rate reserve (difference between max hr and resting hr) and they do make more sense - that would put my 174 time in zone 4 not 5 (so tough but not peak). It still feels a bit off to me as I felt totally fine at that heart rate/able to hold a conversation but does feel less alarming!

I do think my max heart rate is a lot higher than the basic formula would predict though. A few years ago when doing 30day shred with a chest strap I could get to about 200bpm and whilst that was full on 100% effort I didn't feel on the verge of collapse or anything (and within 30mins would just feel a bit tired, not at deaths door or anything)!

So I think I'll stick with mostly the "how I felt during/after" thresholds and see how I go with continued exercise- hopefully it will come down as I get fitter anyway!