Heart Rate to 200

marathonic

I'm wondering how intense people train and do they stop when their heart rate reaches a certain level.

The reason I ask is that I do a 20 minute 'random-level 10' workout in the Gym at 10kph. I do find the last few minutes tough but can complete it. Then, when I put my hand in the sensors for the cooldown, my heart rate reads 197. It drops to 145 after the 5-minute cooldown but I'm wondering should I drop the intensity or keep it up until my heart rate doesn't go quite so high for the workout (I only joined the gym this week).

Will Heffernan

marathonic wrote: »

I'm wondering how intense people train and do they stop when their heart rate reaches a certain level.

The reason I ask is that I do a 20 minute 'random-level 10' workout in the Gym at 10kph. I do find the last few minutes tough but can complete it. Then, when I put my hand in the sensors for the cooldown, my heart rate reads 197. It drops to 145 after the 5-minute cooldown but I'm wondering should I drop the intensity or keep it up until my heart rate doesn't go quite so high for the workout (I only joined the gym this week).

1. The sensor on the machine you are on are varying degrees of 'absolutely miles out'.
2. Regarding your question on heart rate....that really depends on what you are trying to achieve from the session.

marathonic

Will Heffernan wrote: »

1. The sensor on the machine you are on are varying degrees of 'absolutely miles out'.
2. Regarding your question on heart rate....that really depends on what you are trying to achieve from the session.

Thanks Will.

1. I'd thought that because, although I was sweating a lot, I managed to complete the session. I wouldn't have thought I could do that at such a high heart rate
2. Basically, I want to continue at current speeds until I find it very comfortable and then slowly increase the speed to about an 8-minute mile. Fat Loss and Cardiovscular fitness are the main goals for now

Orando Broom

Will Heffernan wrote: »

1. The sensor on the machine you are on are varying degrees of 'absolutely miles out'.
2. Regarding your question on heart rate....that really depends on what you are trying to achieve from the session.

Easy on there cochese. That is bad advice. Do you know for certain that every machine is out?

The gym I use has my standing heart rate at the same level as the machien my dad uses to check his BP.

197 I think is a bit on the high side. It may be something you need to look at OP.

I am not a doctor and I don't know, but it's reckless to assume the machines are not calibrated.

Will Heffernan

Orando Broom wrote: »

Easy on there cochese. That is bad advice. Do you know for certain that every machine is out?

Saying that it is bad advice is your opinion...you can think what you want. I have spent over 20 years in the industry...a lot of those years working with commercial cardio equipment and also in many case servicing it. Like I said...it is generally varying degrees of miles out.

The gym I use has my standing heart rate at the same level as the machien my dad uses to check his BP.

I bet my guess wouldn't be far off either....and I haven't been calibrated for years.

197 I think is a bit on the high side. It may be something you need to look at OP.

Why don't we get the OP to try the same workout on several different machines....see if they all show is heart rate at 197?

I am not a doctor and I don't know, but it's reckless to assume the machines are not calibrated.

Well at least you were right about one thing in that statement...your are not a doctor.

marathonic

Thanks for both of your input.

I think what I'll do is reduce the Level to 9 (this should make a big difference as it's the inclines that are the killer) and use a different machine. Does this sound reasonable?

I'll let you know how I get on.

Orando Broom

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Saying that it is bad advice is your opinion...you can think what you want. I have spent over 20 years in the industry...a lot of those years working with commercial cardio equipment and also in many case servicing it. Like I said...it is generally varying degrees of miles out.


I bet my guess wouldn't be far off either....and I haven't been calibrated for years.


Why don't we get the OP to try the same workout on several different machines....see if they all show is heart rate at 197?


Well at least you were right about one thing in that statement...your are not a doctor.

At least you're a qualified MD and not a gym meathead. Phew!

Orando Broom

marathonic wrote: »

Thanks for both of your input.

I think what I'll do is reduce the Level to 9 (this should make a big difference as it's the inclines that are the killer) and use a different machine. Does this sound reasonable?

I'll let you know how I get on.

For the record 220 minus your age is a decent guess at your max hear-rate.

That is not an exact science.

Will Heffernan

Orando Broom wrote: »

For the record 220 minus your age is a decent guess at your max hear-rate.

That is not an exact science.

Actually it isn't at all...in fact it is generally miles off.

marathonic

Orando Broom wrote: »

For the record 220 minus your age is a decent guess at your max hear-rate.

That is not an exact science.

That'd leave it around 193 for me. I'd like to aim for somewhere around 175 maximum for my workouts. We'll see what the reduction in threadmill level does for me.

Will Heffernan

Orando Broom wrote: »

At least you're a qualified MD and not a gym meathead. Phew!

See the problem is that you are supposedly 'worried' about my advice when everything that you've said indicates you don't have an idea about what you are talking about.

By all means start a thread on the veracity and accuracy of using '220 minus your age' as a method for accurately measuring or for that matter even remotely guessing someones maximal heart rate.

Orando Broom wrote: »

For the record 220 minus your age is a decent guess at your max hear-rate.

That is not an exact science.

This is probably the most dangerous and irresponsible piece of advice I've seen given on this forum today...and that takes some doing.

Will Heffernan

marathonic wrote: »

That'd leave it around 193 for me. I'd like to aim for somewhere around 175 maximum for my workouts. We'll see what the reduction in threadmill level does for me.

Ignore it. '220 minus your age' is a terrible way to guesstimate your maximal heart rate.

There are plenty of sub maximal tests that you could do in the gym that would give you a far better indication of your maximal heart rate.

mushykeogh

i think the 220 minus your age formulae is usually +- 10 beats arseways, if not more.

Will Heffernan

mushykeogh wrote: »

i think the 220 minus your age formulae is usually +- 10 beats arseways, if not more.

I was a part or a junior squad at one stage in Aus with 2 guys who were both sub 30min 10k runners....one had a measured max heart rate of 216bpm and the other of 167bpm. 220 minus our age has them at a supposed max of 200bpm....if our coach had not had our max heart rates measured and sent us out to do intervals at 80% of our max (200bpm) would anyone like to have a guess what would of happened?

I'll save you the trouble....Grant (216bpm max) would be jogging and barely breaking a sweat and Blair (167bpm max) would be running at near maximal pace off in the distance.

Now have a think what could possibly happen to your average trainee beginning here when told that '220 minus your age' is a decent guess at their max heart rate and they start using it as a guide when working out their program or following exercise prescription?

mushykeogh

often seen females max out over 25 beats higher than predicted. Thats on a decent calibrated activio system, big difference indeed.

xgtdec

Will Heffernan wrote: »

2 guys who were both sub 30min 10k runners

My god i hope that time's a typo, your doing my confidence no good here Will

Khannie

xgtdec wrote: »

My god i hope that time's a typo, your doing my confidence no good here Will

Accurate it seems. World record is 26 minutes odd. :eek:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10,000_metres

Khannie

Will Heffernan wrote: »

There are plenty of sub maximal tests that you could do in the gym that would give you a far better indication of your maximal heart rate.

Suggest me one please.

Will Heffernan

xgtdec wrote: »

My god i hope that time's a typo, your doing my confidence no good here Will

How do you think I felt...my best was a 31.50 and I was always the worst

Will Heffernan

Khannie wrote: »

Suggest me one please.

Do you want to run it...step it...ride it...swim it....row it?

Cookie_Monster

I got to 203 once on a stair climber and nearly blacked out
183-185 seems to be my max these days

Khannie

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Do you want to run it...step it...ride it...swim it....row it?

Run or step please. I'm "in between" gyms at the moment.

Will Heffernan

Khannie wrote: »

Run or step please. I'm "in between" gyms at the moment.

For you...if you wanted to know your max heart rate I'd recommend the following....do a complete and proper warm up....then do 5 minutes of hard running....then run as hard as you possibly can for 2 minutes....then have a look at your heart rate...I would say it will be give or take 5bpm +/- max.

If you let me watch I'll lend you one my heart rate monitors.

Khannie

I have a HRM, thanks though. I think I might puke after that. I'll try it next week after I've rested up. You coming to the fights on Saturday week?

gymfreak

Orando Broom wrote: »

For the record 220 minus your age is a decent guess at your max hear-rate.

That is not an exact science.

...it really isn't...some people have high heartrates and others low

I'm 24 and my HR monitor regularly shows heartrates of 226...and I'm still alive:eek:

OP-I would just judge by what your feeling,...if your nearly blacking out at the end of a session yeh then ease off a bit, but if ya feel grand and feel like ya just had a good workout..continue.

ninjasurfer1

I regularly get my heart rate up to 200+ bpms when jogging (it used to be running when i was fit!!). :-)
I specifically mentioned it to my doctor recently who shrugged it off by saying that it totally "depends on the individual" and if I can do it without collapsing, then it "shouldn't be a problem"!!!

Thought it was a bit of a flippant response myself, but if you're worried OP, then I would suggest running (no pun intended!!) it by your doctor for peace of mind if nothing else.

SpookyBastard

gymfreak wrote: »

OP-I would just judge by what your feeling,...if your nearly blacking out at the end of a session yeh then ease off a bit, but if ya feel grand and feel like ya just had a good workout..continue.

This. The 220 thing is useless as it doesn't have a way to factor in the individual. Until you get a more accurate idea of where your maximal is then listen to your body. Your brain is rather good at this after all (sure you can push past your natural warning signals but until you know how much is enough maybe best to listen to them) . If you feel like you've gone too far then ease of a bit, if you feel like you haven't really given your all then you know what to do.

kandr10

I'm just wondering, is it best to work at your max? I was told working within 80% of max burns most fat. Not sure if this is bull though...

Will Heffernan

kandr10 wrote: »

I'm just wondering, is it best to work at your max?

Nope.

I was told working within 80% of max burns most fat. Not sure if this is bull though...

It is bull. The best heart rate to work at is the one that you can sustain the longest while having the most fun on the most occasions this is the one that is most conducive to fat loss.

SpookyBastard

Guess it depends on your goal. Are you after fat burning or improving your cardio vascular fitness, etc. I remember reading somewhere that whilst your body does burn more fat at lower intensity levels you use more energy at higher intensity levels (as you'd expect) and that the fat burning zone idea is actually besides the point. The basic conclusion was that you might as well work as intensely as you can rather than try and stick to a certain 'zone'.

Where's Will to set us straight? :cool:

EDIT: Ah... there he is!

tommyrot

Will Heffernan wrote: »

There are plenty of sub maximal tests that you could do in the gym that would give you a far better indication of your maximal heart rate.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

For you...if you wanted to know your max heart rate I'd recommend the following....do a complete and proper warm up....then do 5 minutes of hard running....then run as hard as you possibly can for 2 minutes....then have a look at your heart rate...I would say it will be give or take 5bpm +/- max.

If you let me watch I'll lend you one my heart rate monitors.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like a maximal HR test to me.

220 - age is as good a guess as any without doing a proper max HR test, though obviously if you take your training in any way serious at all do a proper test, like the one Will describes above.

Khannie

tommyrot wrote: »

I don't know about you, but that sounds like a maximal HR test to me.

He just wants me to puke.

The Guvnor

You can be lucky and get a machine free from interferance that will give a decent reading.

I have found that mp3's or other such devices can cause interferance - I've had my heart rate say 220 a few times - suffice to say I'd pass out long before 220! LOL

marathonic

marathonic wrote: »

Thanks for both of your input.

I think what I'll do is reduce the Level to 9 (this should make a big difference as it's the inclines that are the killer) and use a different machine. Does this sound reasonable?

I'll let you know how I get on.

Well, as promised, I reduced the Level to 9 this morning (kept the speed at 10kph and time at 20 mins + 5 mins cooldown.

The end result was that my heartrate upon completion was 187 as opposed to 197 and it dropped to 127 after the 5 minute cooldown as opposed to 145.

The thing is, I found the session quite easy - still sweated a bit but there wasn't enough inclines. I think I'll repeat this on Friday and move back to Level 10 next week.

On a side note, I tested my heartrate first thing this morning in bed and it was 60 (dunno if that's good or bad or just normal).

iceage

Buy yourself your own HRM (A decent one) and don't rely on the ones in the gym.

Hanley

This was a really good thread.

gymfreak

Hanley wrote: »

Thank you Gymfreak for telling me about this thread

No probs:)

Cookie_Monster

Will Heffernan wrote: »

This is probably the most dangerous and irresponsible piece of advice I've seen given on this forum today...and that takes some doing.

Funny, my friend who is a cardiologist recommended exactly that method to get your max HR...


Edit: d'oh old thread

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I got to 203 once on a stair climber and nearly blacked out
183-185 seems to be my max these days

I regularly get to 185+ these days on the bike and a max of 191 so far.
Not too different to before, little better.
My resting rate has dropped to 49 though

Reggy

I have always wondered if 220-age is actually that accurate, whilst Ive never hit it, Im often close but these here folks say that it underestimates maxHR. they recommended a regression equation to predict HRmax: 208 – 0.7 x age.

"HRmax is predicted, to a large extent, by age alone and is independent of gender and habitual physical activity status. Our findings suggest that the currently used equation underestimates HRmax in older adults. This would have the effect of underestimating the true level of physical stress imposed during exercise testing and the appropriate intensity of prescribed exercise programs." (J Am Coll Cardiol, 2001; 37:153-156)

I guess you will find other studies that say otherwise. In my college the professors still promote the use of 220-age, so I guess it is still somewhat inconclusive as to which is the best method. Its difficult to fault anybody for using the 220-age scenario though when it has often been the most widely recommended one. (that doesnt mean it is correct though).

Hanley

Thing is... if you've got a HRM, and are planning to use it for training by... it shouldn't be too hard to actually find out what it is. So why not do it!

I think I'mma go out tomorrow and find out.

gymfreak

Hanley wrote: »

Thing is... if you've got a HRM, and are planning to use it for training by... it shouldn't be too hard to actually find out what it is. So why not do it!

I think I'mma go out tomorrow and find out.

Cos it hurts...alot

Hanley

gymfreak wrote: »

Cos it hurts...alot

You want easy - you go to Coppers about 3am.

itsallaboutheL

Hanley wrote: »

You want easy - you go to Coppers about 3am.

Just PM me altogether.

lim abroad

hey folks, here's a short scientific journal article i used for a college lab report regarding the 220-age issue

Hanley

lim abroad wrote: »

hey folks, here's a short scientific journal article i used for a college lab report regarding the 220-age issue

Just read the abstract, but that looks like quite an interesting read. Thanks!

cc87

gymfreak wrote: »

Cos it hurts...alot

This is the basic reason that 220-age is so popular, maximal testing is viewed as risky and dangerous (and hard) by many of the people that use the formula.

I've carried out a good few max tests, on treadmills and bikes mainly, and the 220-age formula is fairly useless IMO.

I know that if i try a max test on a bike myself, my Max HR will be less than the predicted one and on a treadmill it will be more than the predicted.

So many factors influence heart rate, I think it is lazy almost to use such a simple formula

TommyKnocker

TBF I don't think the 200-age to get you max HR is either put forward or used by lazy people,

220-age is a guide line. A Max HR test is hard and can be dangerous. IMO A proper Max HR test should only be undertaken by someone who is reasonably fit, and to be on the safe side they should have someone with them while doing it.

A Max HR test stresses the heart to its limit, hence the "Max" in the name, which may not be advisable for somebody just starting on the road to a healthier, fitter lifestyle after years of no exercise. There have also been a number of reports where seemingly fit sports people have died from undiagnosed heart conditions which they were unaware of. So IMHO 220-age is a safe if not 100% accurate method for the majority of folks to gauge their Max HR initially.

gymfreak

TommyKnocker wrote: »

TBF I don't think the 200-age to get you max HR is either put forward or used by lazy people,

220-age is a guide line. A Max HR test is hard and can be dangerous. IMO A proper Max HR test should only be undertaken by someone who is reasonably fit, and to be on the safe side they should have someone with them while doing it.

A Max HR test stresses the heart to its limit, hence the "Max" in the name, which may not be advisable for somebody just starting on the road to a healthier, fitter lifestyle after years of no exercise. There have also been a number of reports where seemingly fit sports people have died from undiagnosed heart conditions which they were unaware of. So IMHO 220-age is a safe if not 100% accurate method for the majority of folks to gauge their Max HR initially.

220-age is quite useless for beginners though, it's obviously either going to underwork them or overwork them. Those that are being underworked will have no incentive to work harder because they'll 'think' that they are working out at a high level and those that are being overworked are most likely to give up.

For the majority of folks there is no need to even look into MAX HR, if you are unfit or overweight you would be best served by getting out there and moving more and not spending hours working out scientific formulas..That's the problem with the majority of folks they over analyse tiny details instead.

Beginners don't really need to know anything about heartrates, they need to get fit first and they should judge their efforts based on how they are feeling..simple.

IMO..max heartrates and heartrate zones should only come into the equation when 1. you know what your talking about and 2. you are trying to acheive something specific.

RacoonQueen

I remember arguing the 220 - age thing to my tutor back in college. My tutor insisted it was an accurate way to find max HR despite all the things that can effect a persons HR. Think I did this on like day two, she never did like me much.

I think for your average gym goer it's as accurate as they're going to get. Most of them won't go anywhere near their max anyway, you know the drill, they just pull back as soon as it starts to hurt a bit. Anyone who is serious about their training is going to have a more accurate reading anyway.

AntiVirus

Reggy wrote: »

Its difficult to fault anybody for using the 220-age scenario though when it has often been the most widely recommended one. (that doesnt mean it is correct though).

Well its not accurate for one so thats a major fault for using it in the first place. Why would any one be interested in knowing what their not accurate maximum heart rate is. It is of no use when it comes to training of anyone of any fitness level.