Low max heart rate - why, how, wtf etc

fat bloke

I've kinda making the transition between having a garmin, and really using a garmin, and I've questions about HR and such like.

I'm in my mid-thirties, reasonably fit, I've put in an ok autumn and winter of training, but I've noticed with my garmin and HR monitor on that my heart rate is generally low enough, which I understood to be on the positive side as an indication of conditioning. I was out a few weeks back for example on a 100k plus spin and we weren't hanging about. There were 3 of us, me, another fella and a girl, all of largely similar ability and age, and at one point when we were fairly shifting along my HR was 150 ish, the lady's was 170 ish, and the other lad's was 190 ish! And pretty much all the time that 20bpm differential was consistently there. Yer man at 190 sounds incredibly high, but his HR is always elevated like that, so much so that I've always thought his HR monitor was faulty. When he's really in the red it reads up well over 200 in medically suspect territory.

Ok, so that's one thing. But while my working heart rate seems to be a healthy low, my max heart rate is also low. Much lower the the traditional theoretical max of 220 - age. (which would have me at 184). But my max recorded ever, (so far, and I've only had the garmin since the end of january this year) is 173, but in the club league opening race it maxxed at 162 - and trust me I was fairly pushing myself for most of it.

Anyone care to give me the abridged version of Garmin science? Or direct me to it. I have mooched around it in google but haven't really nailed anything yet.

lennymc

my max ever was about 155-160. my resting is 57. the 220 rule can be +- 20 and is only a rule of thumb. Would be nice to find some more info actually.

Plastik

That 220-age has long since been discounted. My Garmin read me at 197 last week sprinting. Highest recorded previously that I can remember was 191.

ROK ON

My 2c is that it varies for different folks.

My max is 197.
My resting is 78.
I find that I spend a lot of cycles at 160 & most climbing at 172-180.

I would prefer if I was to cycle at my current pace at a lower HR as I would view that as healthier and more efficient. But despite cycling for 5 years now my HR has not fallen on my average cycle.
What has changed is that I can spend much longer cycling at high HRs.

lennymc

Plastik wrote: »

That 220-age has long since been discounted.

fat bloke just cant stop living in the past tho

whats the modern method plastik?

skerry

ROK ON wrote: »

My 2c is that it varies for different folks.

My max is 197.
My resting is 78.
I find that I spend a lot of cycles at 160 & most climbing at 172-180.

I would prefer if I was to cycle at my current pace at a lower HR as I would view that as healthier and more efficient. But despite cycling for 5 years now my HR has not fallen on my average cycle.
What has changed is that I can spend much longer cycling at high HRs.

I agree with the above. My HR generally tops out at 200bpm if there's a particularly tough section in a long spin. Have been cycling regularly for almost two years. Putting a lot of miles in and my max HR shows no sign of getting lower although I'm definitely a lot fitter than when I started out. Think some folks just have high HR's

Leroy42

You've kinda answered your own question within the OP.

HR figures have very little comparative value from one person to the next. The 220 rule, as already mentioned, is at best extremely general, and for people participating in active sports etc is probably useless.

You mentioned that while the HR varied between you and your companions, it was relatively static from a variance point of view, and there-in lays the answer. It doesn't matter what their HR's are, only how it compares to their maximum. HR absolute numbers are fairly pointless in themselves; it is the % to the max which is important. Your 150 as a % of your stated max (although that is probably only close to your max) is still >86%, which is fairly close to what you can maintain for any sustained period.

Without knowing the specifics of the race it is impossible to tell why you only attained 162, but if the 173 is truly your max, then 162 is almost 94%, that’s pretty high. Max HR, as it suggests, is the maximum that your heart can beat at, it is very difficult to reach these levels as the body has other functions to limit you (lung capacity, legs, an overriding desire to survive etc) so hitting 94% is still really quite high. Any number of factors can affect HR, stress, overtraining etc so again I wouldn't read too much into it (if you didn't win the race then you at least know you have 11 more beats to use next time!!!!)

velo.2010

You sound pretty normal fatbloke!

This may assuage any doubts about your heartrate.
http://www.runnersworld.com/community/forums/runner-communities/elite-performance/low-max-heart-rate

An unscientific measuremant of my own heartrate on a turbo in a large metal shed in 40+ degree heat was 206. That was a few years ago when all I was doing was on a turbo and I wasn't particularly fit at the time. Max heartate reached as a reasonably fit cyclist was 189 going up Seskin/Tallagh Hill. Didn't have a HR monitor when I blew up on the Club Hill Climb last year but must have been higher than the 189 - felt like it! Must replace the one that broke on me.

Plastik

lennymc wrote: »

fat bloke just cant stop living in the past tho

whats the modern method plastik?

Couldn't tell you! My max should be 191 by that method though. It's like the BMI, it's a very general calculator but by no means the definitive guide.

Dermot Illogical

I'd be really suffering if mine went anywhere over 160. But my resting HR used to be 38 and probably isn't too far over that now.

Beasty

Everyone is different - my max should be 169 based on the 220-age formula, but I've hit 186 a few times on the bike. They reckon your max HR running can be another 5 or so when compared to the bike, so I would guess my "real" max is around 190.

If you've hit 173, your real max is probably higher

It's when it hits zero that you have to start worrying (and hope a cardiac surgeon is in the crowd and able supervise proceedings and then escort you to the nearest chest hospital)...;)

tonyangelino

My resting is 35+ and my max doing a session is usually 178 but yesterday in the Dunboyne 4m rr I reached 189 in the closing stages. I guess I was on deaths door at that stage. Im 39 so 181 should be my max acc to the old 220-rule. Truth is I wouldnt read too much into heart rates. Your mate's sounds wrong to me though, like its a miss reading which happens a lot-I often show a spike of 200+ which is wrong.

Beasty

Garmins are not completely accurate - according to mine I hit 180 in yesterday's vets race, whereas based on the undelying graphs my maximum was about 170 (interestingly I have sustained over 170 for an hour in a 25m TT last year) - I put the 180 yesterday down as a blip

kenmc

my garmin has recorded me at 208 last year and 214 this year. my resting is 56

sy

kenmc wrote: »

my garmin has recorded me at 208 last year and 214 this year. my resting is 56

Didn't know Benjamin Button was a boardsie!!

kenmc

sy wrote: »

Didn't know Benjamin Button was a boardsie!!

C3PO

As far as I know your Max HR doesn't get lower as you get fitter? It will be lower as you get older, all other things being equal! Your resting heart rate will however decrease as you get fitter and can be used as an indicator of increasing fitness I think?

Beasty

RPL1 wrote: »

As far as I know your Max HR doesn't get lower as you get fitter? It will be lower as you get older, all other things being equal! Your resting heart rate will however decrease as you get fitter and can be used as an indicator of increasing fitness I think?

Pretty much - in terms of the Max HR getting lower as you get older, the one thing that formula does do is give you a pretty good idea that for an adult on average your Max HR will drop by about 1 beat each year

Morrisseeee

My own stats, late 30's, resting 55, max (so far) 192, usually at 182-186 when pushing hard (esp on a climb).

One thing I've noticed, when I'm unfit, off the bike for 2 weeks or more, I easily get up to 190ish but I very rarely get there when I'm fit and cycling regularly.

On the Muamba thing, as somebody hinted at previously, does that type of thing happen in cycling ? I can't recall it happening any Pro's. Is SADS and heart related issues/problems confined to certain sports ? I've played hurling from the age of 7 and then played alot of soccer in my 20's but I've found cycling to be the hardest sport, mainly because you are pushing yourself 100% (or so) of the time.
Maybe it's the collisions or contact nature of GAA & soccer etc that puts the heart under more irregularities. Has any one recorded the heart rate while playing these sports ?

NeedMoreGears

There are quite a few so called predictors of max heart rate based on age. The oldest ones appears to be the Haskell 220-Age one. Others include Londeree 206 - 0.77Age, Miller 208 - 0.7Age and Barry 214 - 0.5Age - 0.11Weight (kg). These are for males. I think the last one is what's used in my HRM and possibly by Garmin. One way or the other I recall (hopefully correctly) that the standard deviation for most of these was 11 beats, which is high enough.

For a young skinny lad like lad like myself they give a range of 170 to 181 - Barry tends to produce higher max numbers.

In practice I've seen my HRM hit 168 on the bike after a 750m sprint and well warmed up ; close to puking levels of effort. The next time I tried (about 5 mins later), I was slower and only reached 162. I've also seen 180 on a gym running machine but I suspect it was over reading a bit - the highest I'd seen before that was 168.

In practice, I can sustain 135 - 140 for a few hours, but 147 is my hourly limit, which suggests a max of 173 (assuming my 85% as a reasonable one hours threshold)

Resting used to be 47 but this winter seems to be 50, although I haven't measured it carefully for a while.

Now can someone explain the zones thing to me please. %max or %reserve or both or neither.........

C3PO

One thing I've noticed recently is that if I'm tired and have been cycling 2-3 days in a row my HR seems to be slow to rise even though I perceive myself to be trying hard!

Beasty

Morrisseeee wrote: »

On the Muamba thing, as somebody hinted at previously, does that type of thing happen in cycling ? I can't recall it happening any Pro's. Is SADS and heart related issues/problems confined to certain sports ? I've played hurling from the age of 7 and then played alot of soccer in my 20's but I've found cycling to be the hardest sport, mainly because you are pushing yourself 100% (or so) of the time.
Maybe it's the collisions or contact nature of GAA & soccer etc that puts the heart under more irregularities. Has any one recorded the heart rate while playing these sports ?

Not sure anyone yet knows exactly what happened with Muamba, but it is a very rare event in soccer. The one difference I can think of is that with soccer there are a lot more short intensive bursts, whereas cyclists hearts will usually see a more gradual build up (even when sprinting), with sustained effort over a much longer period. In addition, as I've already alluded to, you max HM when running is typically a few beats higher than when cycling, suggesting there can be more of a strain on the heart in sports that involve running.

seamus

HR is one thing that's confounded me a bit.
I thought I had it nailed last year through trial-and-error. I thought I knew what my max was (around 202), I though I knew where my LT was (around 175/180) and I knew that if my HR dropped below 150 I would start getting cold. I could go on forever if I kept my HR between 160 and 170. I knew I was getting tired if I could feel lactic build-up below 170bpm. Really pushing myself up a hill I would expect to see my HR hit around 195. My resting rate was 60-65.

After losing 10kg, it all seems to be on its head now. Resting HR is about 55 during the day, 45 in the evening. On a spin I have no idea where the sweet spot is, no matter much I'm killing myself my HR never seems to hit 190 or more. But I'm faster and stronger than I was last year. So all I can really say is that the specific HR is completely unrelated to performance.

Beasty

seamus wrote: »

HR is one thing that's confounded me a bit.
I thought I had it nailed last year through trial-and-error. I thought I knew what my max was (around 202), I though I knew where my LT was (around 175/180) and I knew that if my HR dropped below 150 I would start getting cold. I could go on forever if I kept my HR between 160 and 170. I knew I was getting tired if I could feel lactic build-up below 170bpm. Really pushing myself up a hill I would expect to see my HR hit around 195. My resting rate was 60-65.

After losing 10kg, it all seems to be on its head now. Resting HR is about 55 during the day, 45 in the evening. On a spin I have no idea where the sweet spot is, no matter much I'm killing myself my HR never seems to hit 190 or more. But I'm faster and stronger than I was last year. So all I can really say is that the specific HR is completely unrelated to performance.

It's easier to hit the highs when you are less fit (or coming back from injury/illness). When you are fit the heart handles the "load" more efficiently

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

It's easier to hit the highs when you are less fit (or coming back from injury/illness). When you are fit the heart handles the "load" more efficiently

I'm not sure I agree with that. It's harder to reach and maintain high HR when you are under-recovered, but fast fit people have no problems getting their heart rates up.

I dimly recall from some article somewhere that the more aerobically trained you are, the narrower the gap between your lactate threshold HR and your max HR.

Morrisseeee

Originally Posted by Beasty
It's easier to hit the highs when you are less fit (or coming back from injury/illness).

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that. It's harder to reach and maintain high HR when you are under-recovered, but fast fit people have no problems getting their heart rates up.
.

I could be wrong but is Beasty stating something slightly different to what you are stating Lumen ?
Beasty is stating that you can hit your max HR when less fit (which is my experience), wheras you are stating that it's easier to hit your (normal) high HR and maintain it when fit (also very true), ie. normal high HR as opposed to a Max HR value.
/I think :pac:

Lumen

Morrisseeee wrote: »

I could be wrong but is Beasty stating something slightly different to what you are stating Lumen ?
Beasty is stating that you can hit your max HR when less fit (which is my experience), wheras you are stating that it's easier to hit your (normal) high HR and maintain it when fit (also very true), ie. normal high HR as opposed to a Max HR value.

I'm saying that max HR should be easy to hit regardless of how fit you are, provided that you are rested.

"High HR", i.e. that sort of existential, joy-destroying, character building please-make-it-stop suffering that comes from riding at lactate threshold for 20 mins or so, is easier to maintain when you're fit than when you are not, but only because your system is able to flush away and tolerate the waste products more effectively.

Beasty

OK - my personal experience is that when I've been off the bike for a week, perhaps because of a virus or holiday, is that my average and peak HR tends to be higher for the first few days, then settles back

In terms of hitting my maximum, as already indicated I've been at 186 a few times, but suspect my actual max is a bit higher, as I don't think I've ever "managed" it well enough to hit a real peak when riding (although I think I've been pretty close).

I find it "easiest" to manage when on the track, when you can build up over a sustained period then push hard at the end, with the distraction of actually riding the bike (which you don't get on the turbo for example)

Lumen

Beasty wrote: »

OK - my personal experience is that when I've been off the bike for a week, perhaps because of a virus or holiday, is that my average and peak HR tends to be higher for the first few days, then settles back

You're saying that it's easier to get your HR up when you're rested. Which is I think what I said also.

I find that power and HR seem quite closely correlated over the short term (week to week), although I don't have much data because I often don't bother with an HR strap if I'm on a bike with a power meter. When it's difficult to get HR up it is difficult to get power up too. Morning threshold sessions for instance - they hurt even when I'm only hitting 170, and then later the same day I can hit 180 (and corresponding higher power output) no problem.

Morrisseeee

Lumen wrote: »

I'm saying that max HR should be easy to hit regardless of how fit you are, provided that you are rested.

Unfortunatley (or fortunately ) my experience is different to that, I can't hit my max (192) when fit, even while racing and under serious pressure, but I can hit it fairly lively while unfit and under pressure.

jinkypolly

I have always had trouble trying to use the various equations but none of them ever worked out, it's only now after close monitoring using an HRM that I know where my zones are. I'm 43 with a resting HR of 46 and max of 192, so anything that tried to factor in age was of no use to me, so I would say to anyone else DO NOT rely on any of the HR equations.

petethedrummer

http://competitorradio.competitor.com/2006/08/20greg-lemond/

Go to 01:01:20 of this podcast and you'll hear Greg Lemond going on about heart rate drift and the problems of training using heart rate.

skerry

Just back from a club spin there. HR spiked at 241 bpm which I'm guessing must be a bad reading. Generally top out at 200 on a hard spin. Reading was after a 9km climb of about 200m. Definitely wasn't suffering that bad on the climb, spiked at 241 half way down the descent which doesn't make sense. Have strap on pretty snug. Its the older style Garmin HRM, not sure if the newer ones are anymore reliable though. Doesn't seem very dependable to me

Esroh

skerry wrote: »

Just back from a club spin there. HR spiked at 241 bpm which I'm guessing must be a bad reading. Generally top out at 200 on a hard spin. Reading was after a 9km climb of about 200m. Definitely wasn't suffering that bad on the climb, spiked at 241 half way down the descent which doesn't make sense. Have strap on pretty snug. Its the older style Garmin HRM, not sure if the newer ones are anymore reliable though. Doesn't seem very dependable to me

Do you know if anyone else in the group had a HRM on. could be pairing with a 2nd monitor.

sy

kenmc wrote: »

As you get younger your max heart rate should increase which seems to be happening in your case (I'm sure you saw the film)
Are you racing this year?

skerry

Esroh wrote: »

Do you know if anyone else in the group had a HRM on. could be pairing with a 2nd monitor.

I know of at least one, most likely more. No way I could have hit 241 on a climb, never mind a descent. Are they prone to getting signals confused with other HRM's in the vicinity?