heart rate

"der gerauif" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am 53 years old male and my heart rate easily goes over 170 when I do

a

Quoted message said:

run of more than 1 hour. I run regularly since a quarter of a century, and

I

Quoted message said:

don't think there has been much change in my HR (not sure, though). On the
other hand things must be changing when you get older. The official
recommendations usually include rules of thumb that indicate that at my

age

Quoted message said:

my HR should stay below 155 or so, implying that I just shouldn't run
anymore, just jog. My HR is regular and when I really try I can get it to
190. When would you guys start worrying?

When you start believing rules of thumb. ;-)

In the "normal" sedentary population, you will indeed find that maximum
heart rates fall. If you remain very active however, this "normal" decline
with age/decrepitude doesn't occur. These maximum heart rate tables that
you see aren't guidelines, there just a reflection of what happens in the
average population.

If you've got no cardiac symptoms and you're well otherwise, you can
forget about what's "normal" and enjoy your running.

Tim

Leafing through rec.running, I read Tim Downie's message of 13 Nov 2004:

Quoted message said:

In the "normal" sedentary population, you will indeed find that
maximum heart rates fall. If you remain very active however, this
"normal" decline with age/decrepitude doesn't occur.

My decrepitudity factor seems to be stabilized. However, I still look
decrepit. :^[

Phil M.

Quoted message said:

When would you guys start worrying?

10 years ago.

"der gerauif" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am 53 years old male and my heart rate easily goes over 170 when I do

a

Quoted message said:

run of more than 1 hour.

Quoted message said:

My HR is regular and when I really try I can get it to
190. When would you guys start worrying?

There's quite a bit of variability in heart rate. I have a friend who at
age 56 has a max of 220. I'm 53, and I got it up to 190 at the end of a
race on a hot day recently. My max was 200-205 back when I was in my 30's.

I'd worry if I had chest pains, or tightness in the chest. Otherwise, have
at it.

If you're really paranoid, you can get a heart scan or ultrasound which can
see if you've got CHD.

-- Dan

Leafing through rec.running, I read Dan Stumpus's message of 13 Nov
2004:

Quoted message said:

"der gerauif" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am 53 years old male and my heart rate easily goes over 170 when
I do

a

Quoted message said:

run of more than 1 hour.

Quoted message said:

My HR is regular and when I really try I can get it to
190. When would you guys start worrying?

There's quite a bit of variability in heart rate. I have a friend who
at age 56 has a max of 220. I'm 53, and I got it up to 190 at the end
of a race on a hot day recently. My max was 200-205 back when I was
in my 30's.

Does your max hr really matter? Does it mean you're in better or worse
shape if you have a particular max hr? Isn't it just a reference point on
which to base your training?

Phil M.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Tim Downie said:

In the "normal" sedentary population, you will indeed find that maximum
heart rates fall. If you remain very active however, this "normal" decline
with age/decrepitude doesn't occur.

The term I heard--which I really like--is "chronically fit."

Anyway, if you're worried, get a stress test, and it will probably tell
you your heart is fine and you're in great shape.

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Does your max hr really matter? Does it mean you're in better or worse
shape if you have a particular max hr? Isn't it just a reference point on
which to base your training?

Yeah, I look at it when training to see how I'm doing. As I get into better
shape, I can hold a higher heart rate and feel good. (which also correlates
with speed)I also try and keep it down on days when I feel strong, but need
an easy day.

For example, I did a 24 miler with four 1,500' climbs today, and kept my
heart rate below 155 on the climbs, because I didn't want to work at race
effort. I could have gone harder, but it would have messed up my training
week.

-- Dan

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Phil M." <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Does your max hr really matter? Does it mean you're in better or
worse
shape if you have a particular max hr? Isn't it just a reference
point on
which to base your training?

Yeah, I look at it when training to see how I'm doing. As I get into
better
shape, I can hold a higher heart rate and feel good. (which also
correlates
with speed)I also try and keep it down on days when I feel strong, but
need
an easy day.

For example, I did a 24 miler with four 1,500' climbs today, and kept
my
heart rate below 155 on the climbs, because I didn't want to work at
race
effort. I could have gone harder, but it would have messed up my
training
week.

I had a stress test a few years ago and I could not get my heart rate
past 150 even at the highest elevation. Am I doomed to always be slow?

-DF

Leafing through rec.running, I read Doug Freese's message of 13 Nov 2004:

Quoted message said:

I had a stress test a few years ago and I could not get my heart rate
past 150 even at the highest elevation. Am I doomed to always be slow?

Mine is around 170, but who cares? My guess is that your pace at 80% MHR is
a faster mi/min pace than most. My point was that people throw these
numbers around as if having a max above 200 is a good thing. It's just a
point of reference. Or is there more to it?

Phil M.

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I had a stress test a few years ago and I could not get my heart rate past
150 even at the highest elevation. Am I doomed to always be slow?

No. For instance, Hal Higdon has always had a very
low MHR, and he ran at the elite level in his day.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton ON)
www.absolutelyaccurate.com
www.allfalldown.org

In article <[email hidden]>,

Phil M. said:

Does your max hr really matter? Does it mean you're in better or worse
shape if you have a particular max hr? Isn't it just a reference point on
which to base your training?

I think it's part of the equation, not the whole story. I *think* if you
have two people with equal VO2max, running economy, lactate threshold,
and so on, but one person has a higher max HR, then that person will
probably be a little faster. But, of course, these things are never all
equal.

Perhaps a better way of looking at it is that if you suddenly weren't
allowed to get your heart rate over 100, wouldn't you run more slowly?

--Harold Buck

"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

Doug Freese said:

I had a stress test a few years ago and I could not get my heart rate
past 150 even at the highest elevation. Am I doomed to always be slow?

Yes, you are -- but that doesn't have anything to do with your stress test
result (-;

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

der gerauif said:

I am 53 years old male and my heart rate easily goes over 170 when I do a
run of more than 1 hour. I run regularly since a quarter of a century, and I
don't think there has been much change in my HR (not sure, though). On the
other hand things must be changing when you get older. The official
recommendations usually include rules of thumb that indicate that at my age
my HR should stay below 155 or so, implying that I just shouldn't run
anymore, just jog. My HR is regular and when I really try I can get it to
190. When would you guys start worrying?

[censored]

I've been lurking, thinking I might get help here on pretty much the
same question. I did post my question on a group where I am a regular:
rec.bicycles.misc. If you do a google groups search on high maximum
heart rate you will find this topic comes up on many different groups
and there are quite a lot of people out there with maximum heart rates
unusually high for their age.

I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes a year ago and was determined to
control it with diet and excercise. I gradually increased my exercise
beyond the walking (with hills) I've done for years. By last May I
tried running, but a hip problem came up, so I took up bicycling for the
first time since college. The bicycling works wonderfully for me--I did
a 62 mile organized ride in early October. I'm still trying to build up
the running very slowly, hoping to be able to do a sprint triathlon next
May in honor of my 50th birthday.

I bought a heart rate monitor a month or so ago, thinking that it would
encourage me and help me keep up my effort on the bike. I went and rode
up the steepest longest hill I have successfully ridden. I was
mind-boggled that my heart rate hit 195. I was puffing harder and
harder but I could keep riding. I did a little research and satisfied
myself that it is normal variation. See particularly
http://www.athletictrainingservices.com/MHR.htm

But I told my doctor about it the next time I saw her, and she said that
I should have it checked out, as heart disease can have no symptoms,
particularly in women. She sent me to a cardiologist with a diagnosis
of tachycardia (though my resting heart rate is 60). The cardiologist
said I should have a stress test and an echocardiogram. I did the
stress test this past Thursday (if you do it make sure that your doctor
writes on the order to let your heart rate go high--otherwise they stop
you when you reach the maximum for your age). I felt great--at a heart
rate of 191 I was by no means out of breath and was eager to keep going.
But the doctor monitoring the test insisted that I stop because an
abnormality had showed up in the EKG when my heart rate went above 170.
The abnormality was that the ST part of the wave dropped down below
the isoelectrical level, which can be a sign of a partial blockage.
Other people have that abnormality when nothing at all is wrong. The
cardiologist wants me to have a heart catheterization to check for a
partial blockage, and I incline to go ahead and do it (some friends are
saying get a second opinion and maybe a less invasive test, but I think
I need maximum information if I want to continue high intensity
exercise). I've always had very good cholesterol numbers and have no
family history of heart disease so I find it hard to believe I could
have a blockage, but I want to know for sure.

I asked the cardiologist whether if the catheterization shows no
problems he would still be concerned about my high maximum heart rate.
He said he would be, and would want to give me medication to lower it.
I think he is wrong in that, and I will find a cardiologist who
specializes in athletes (anyone know one in Atlanta?) before considering
medication. In the meantime, I very much would like to find medical
articles that discuss normal variation in maximum heart rate to show the
cardiologist. Telling him that I have seen a lot of people on the
internet who have high maximum heart rates isn't going to get me very
far. I've done some searching on pubmed without any luck so far--if
anyone knows any such articles I would very much like references.

I'm still in the middle of my story--the catheterization is scheduled in
a week and a half. What I can tell you so far, is that doctors, at
least the ones I've seen, do see it as something that ought to be
checked out, even in the absence of any chest pain or other symptoms.
I've come down in an awkward middle place--I think the high maximum
heart rate can be a normal variation and the doctors are wrong to see it
as a problem by itself, but I also want to keep getting checked out
until the doctors are satisfied that there isn't something else wrong.

Pam

[pam]
<< I've come down in an awkward middle place >>

What place is that?

_______
Blog, or dog? Who knows. But if you see my lost pup, please ping me!
<A
HREF="http://journals.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo">http://journal
s.aol.com/virginiaz/DreamingofLeonardo</A>

If it were me I would scamper to the nearest cardiologist who runs or
cycles competively for a second opinion. There are two other
non-invasive "tests" that are post stress test, an ultra sound and an
thallium uptake. I realize I am old school and that now days a cath is
an out patient procedure, but snaking a tube into the heart is still
snaking a tube into the heart-now if you flunk either of the above-get
the cath. A good place to start would be an old-timer from the local
track club, you may not find a cardiologist but a doctor who runs that
knows one.

With all of this in mind, Type 2 does often lead to higher incidence of
heart problems, but not always. You didn't mention if you were
controlling with meds or diet, but a running endo possibly should be
brought into the mix. I would recommend one of the diabetes newsgroups
but most of them have more squirrels than this group has trolls.

Good Luck.

pam_in_sc said:

der gerauif said:

I am 53 years old male and my heart rate easily goes over 170 when I do a
run of more than 1 hour. I run regularly since a quarter of a century, and I
don't think there has been much change in my HR (not sure, though). On the
other hand things must be changing when you get older. The official
recommendations usually include rules of thumb that indicate that at my age
my HR should stay below 155 or so, implying that I just shouldn't run
anymore, just jog. My HR is regular and when I really try I can get it to
190. When would you guys start worrying?

[censored]

I've been lurking, thinking I might get help here on pretty much the
same question. I did post my question on a group where I am a regular:
rec.bicycles.misc. If you do a google groups search on high maximum
heart rate you will find this topic comes up on many different groups
and there are quite a lot of people out there with maximum heart rates
unusually high for their age.

I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes a year ago and was determined to
control it with diet and excercise. I gradually increased my exercise
beyond the walking (with hills) I've done for years. By last May I
tried running, but a hip problem came up, so I took up bicycling for the
first time since college. The bicycling works wonderfully for me--I did
a 62 mile organized ride in early October. I'm still trying to build up
the running very slowly, hoping to be able to do a sprint triathlon next
May in honor of my 50th birthday.

I bought a heart rate monitor a month or so ago, thinking that it would
encourage me and help me keep up my effort on the bike. I went and rode
up the steepest longest hill I have successfully ridden. I was
mind-boggled that my heart rate hit 195. I was puffing harder and
harder but I could keep riding. I did a little research and satisfied
myself that it is normal variation. See particularly
http://www.athletictrainingservices.com/MHR.htm

But I told my doctor about it the next time I saw her, and she said that
I should have it checked out, as heart disease can have no symptoms,
particularly in women. She sent me to a cardiologist with a diagnosis
of tachycardia (though my resting heart rate is 60). The cardiologist
said I should have a stress test and an echocardiogram. I did the
stress test this past Thursday (if you do it make sure that your doctor
writes on the order to let your heart rate go high--otherwise they stop
you when you reach the maximum for your age). I felt great--at a heart
rate of 191 I was by no means out of breath and was eager to keep going.
But the doctor monitoring the test insisted that I stop because an
abnormality had showed up in the EKG when my heart rate went above 170.
The abnormality was that the ST part of the wave dropped down below
the isoelectrical level, which can be a sign of a partial blockage.
Other people have that abnormality when nothing at all is wrong. The
cardiologist wants me to have a heart catheterization to check for a
partial blockage, and I incline to go ahead and do it (some friends are
saying get a second opinion and maybe a less invasive test, but I think
I need maximum information if I want to continue high intensity
exercise). I've always had very good cholesterol numbers and have no
family history of heart disease so I find it hard to believe I could
have a blockage, but I want to know for sure.

I asked the cardiologist whether if the catheterization shows no
problems he would still be concerned about my high maximum heart rate.
He said he would be, and would want to give me medication to lower it.
I think he is wrong in that, and I will find a cardiologist who
specializes in athletes (anyone know one in Atlanta?) before considering
medication. In the meantime, I very much would like to find medical
articles that discuss normal variation in maximum heart rate to show the
cardiologist. Telling him that I have seen a lot of people on the
internet who have high maximum heart rates isn't going to get me very
far. I've done some searching on pubmed without any luck so far--if
anyone knows any such articles I would very much like references.

I'm still in the middle of my story--the catheterization is scheduled in
a week and a half. What I can tell you so far, is that doctors, at
least the ones I've seen, do see it as something that ought to be
checked out, even in the absence of any chest pain or other symptoms.
I've come down in an awkward middle place--I think the high maximum
heart rate can be a normal variation and the doctors are wrong to see it
as a problem by itself, but I also want to keep getting checked out
until the doctors are satisfied that there isn't something else wrong.

Pam

"SwStudio" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Doug Freese" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I had a stress test a few years ago and I could not get my heart rate
past 150 even at the highest elevation. Am I doomed to always be
slow?

No. For instance, Hal Higdon has always had a very
low MHR, and he ran at the elite level in his day.

Phew! Now I'll presue an AARP sponsor for my depends and poly-grip. 😉
-DF

"Donovan Rebbechi" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

I had a stress test a few years ago and I could not get my heart rate
past 150 even at the highest elevation. Am I doomed to always be
slow?

Yes, you are -- but that doesn't have anything to do with your stress
test
result (-;

Ouch, another pin in the doll! 😉

Your Idol.

Bumper said:

If it were me I would scamper to the nearest cardiologist who runs or
cycles competively for a second opinion. There are two other
non-invasive "tests" that are post stress test, an ultra sound and an
thallium uptake. I realize I am old school and that now days a cath is
an out patient procedure, but snaking a tube into the heart is still
snaking a tube into the heart-now if you flunk either of the above-get
the cath. A good place to start would be an old-timer from the local
track club, you may not find a cardiologist but a doctor who runs that
knows one.

With all of this in mind, Type 2 does often lead to higher incidence of
heart problems, but not always. You didn't mention if you were
controlling with meds or diet, but a running endo possibly should be
brought into the mix. I would recommend one of the diabetes newsgroups
but most of them have more squirrels than this group has trolls.

Good Luck.

Thanks! I'm a regular on alt.support.diabetes and controlling my bg
with a relatively low carb diet, adjusting my diet based on what my
meter tells me. No meds, and my latest A1c was 5.0

I'm still struggling with the choice between the cath as a quick
(because this cardiologist was willing to work with my schedule) and
most definitive answer to the question vs. avoiding an invasive test.
My friend in Massachusetts who has had seven caths made it sound like
not a big deal. I'm signed up for an organized 100 mile bike ride the
first weekend in December and I'm dreaming that if I had the cath next
week and it showed no problem I would be able to do the ride, which I
probably shouldn't if I am still awaiting tests.

I live in western South Carolina--the local pool of doctors is pretty
limited. Atlanta is only two hours away but I don't have a route yet to
find the right doctor there.

Pam

Quoted message said:

Now I'll presue an AARP sponsor for my depends and poly-grip.

So "he" was right about you.