Maximum heart rate - formula doesn't seem to work in my case?

rainglow

I bought a Polar F11 HRM so I could accurately calculate calories burned while exercising. It takes your age, sex, height, weight etc into account when calculating your calries burned. I'm not out of shape - I run, do spinning classes, and lift weights. I workout at a high intensity 4-5 times a week. I'm 5'4, 9st5lbs and 27 y/o.

According to my new gadget, my average heart rate for a 35 minute, 3.6 mile run was 175bpm, and apparently I maxed out at 188bpm. These heart rates are 90% and 97% of my alleged maximum heart rate. My run was a little tough, but I wasn't gasping for air, or feeling like I was going to puke or collapse. And to top it all off, the stupid thing told me I burned 485 calories in 35 minutes!!! Jesus, if only. I'd have faded away long before now.

Does this mean that my max HR is higher than estimated by the old 220-age equation? And what about the calories burned tally - have I wasted a heap of money on this HRM only to be thwarted by my own pesky body?! :mad:

Any advice would be very welcome, as I'm clearly baffled

jj1310

try the Karvonen Formula. google it. more accurate. Also google the RPE ( rate of precieved exertion). Hope this helps

j@utis

I'm 5'4, 27 y/o, just few pounds havier, and if I run that distance in that time I'm getting very similar heart rates. I don't have a fancy HR monitor but the one integrated into tredmill says ~170-180bpm. I doubt your gadget lies... ok, maybe just a little bit.

BossArky

When I run a 5km in about 23 or 24 mins the threadmill tells me that I burn approx 400 cals. I'm around 73kg. So, you're not too far off.

I also find that the threadmill heart rate monitors put my heart rate up around 190-ish beats per minute, when the max should be 100% at 194.

Pherekydes

Your max Heart rate is the maximum heart rate you can achieve, not some figure written in a book or on a website.

I'm 47 and according to my monitor I maxed out at 109% (188) during the goal mile on Christmas day! But instead of 173 (220-47) my real MHR is probably over 190, so I didn't quite max out (still alive!).

About the calories, I find that the polar monitor I have over-estimates calories burnt. According to it, I can burn nearly 1000 cals an hour! I wish. My Garmin forerunner gives about 600, which is a lot closer to the truth.

gabgab

I have one and it allows you to input your details, so you can go and get your maximum,

This can be done by belting up a hill a few times until almost exhaustion and seeing how high it gets, there are alot of ways of doing it and I find them a useful tool as I have a tendency to be a lazy ****e,

Google it and it will give you a better idea, were not all the same and formulas are not ideal,

aye

jj1310 wrote: »

try the Karvonen Formula. google it. more accurate. Also google the RPE ( rate of precieved exertion). Hope this helps

+1.

the Karvonen formula will work out the heart rate you need to be at to be training at certain percentage of your max heart rate. i.e. if you want to train at 80% your max.
it is more personal becuse it takes into account your resting heart rate.
to get your resting heart rate, take your heart rate when you get up in the morning first thing for 3 days consecutively, and get the average.

220 - age is an estimation formula. the fit 25 year old and unfit 25 year old will have differing max a nd resting heart rates, so use the karvonen formula.

Collumbo

Slow coach wrote: »

Your max Heart rate is the maximum heart rate you can achieve, not some figure written in a book or on a website.
.

ditto...

When I was relatively unfit at the age of 26, I could easily hit 200, even 205 on some days. Now I'm 31 and a lot fitter, I can max at 183 if I have the will power. My body feels like it's about to explode if I go over 175... some 31 year old cyclists i know can still hit the 200 mark...

Note that cycling is what I'm into. If I was running, i could probably hit higher rates.

Bottom line is that everyone is different.

And some formulae use resting heart rate in the equations so bare that in mind too before working out any "zones".

hunnymonster

The only way to properly get your HRM is in a lab during an test to maximal test. Having said that, most people can get to withing 1-2 bpm of it using the following quick and dirty method (for runners).

1. Find a kick off hill,
2. run up it as fast as you can,
3. walk back down,
4. run up it again,
5 repeat 3 and 4 until you puke, yes until you want to pass out and leave your porridge by the roadside. No point half doing it!
the max HR measured doing it this way is pretty accurate.

Patto

I have the same or similiar HRM. None of the formula work for me either. I'm 32 and my HR max is 198. I work out all my zones from that figure not based on any formula.

You can input your max HR manually into the watch. I find it very good most of the time.

The calorie thing is a bit dodgy alright. The watch doesn't know what distance you have covered so the formula is based on you av HR. That must be flawed as when you get fitter if you cover the same distance in the same time you will do so at a lower av HR.

So if you unfit and have a high max hr for your age you will get an overestimated cal output, if you are very fit and have a low max hr for your age you will get an enderestimated av Hr.

As you can see, I've given this a lot of thought, I really need to get a life:o