Heart Rate (red line) when exercising

[JamesAA]

Sorry, this question isn't about cycling training per se, but it's in the ballpark and this seemed like the most appropriate place to ask. I am a cyclist but I play other sports too. I always wear my Polar HR monitor with me. I'm 40. I was doing some football drills were I'd alternate between playing WR (running routes) and DB (covering receivers). This was after playing basketball for 45 min. My HR was climbing to 160-165 with the greatest of ease, i.e. after running just one pass route. This is somewhat standard for me after I have already been exercising for a while. So when I get back to run another route I feel fine (breathing out of my mouth but barely and I'm not out of breath or really laboring. Mind you I am breathing harder than at rest of course...but nothing at all near to feeling "out of breath"). So I look at my HR monitor and it says 165. I'm supposed to run another route but I'm afraid to because of my HR being so high and I know if I run another sprint when I'm 165, it'll balloon up to the upper 170s (at least). That scares me. Should it? Or should I go by how out of breath I am. Cause if I didn't have my HR monitor I felt perfectly ok to run another route when my monitor said I was at 165. Sure I was a bit heavy breathing, but not enough to stop me from running again.

Thanks in advanced for any input you have.

 

[dhk2]

IF you have a healthy heart and cardiovascular system, you should be fine ignoring your HRM and just training or playing as hard as you like. But on the other hand, on the off-chance that you've got clogged arteries, an abnormal EKG, or some other serious heart defect, you could be putting yourself at increased risk of a heart attack.

Believe you are prudent to be concerned. Suggest you talk to your doctor about specific tests that could be advisable depending on your individual health and family history. Chances are everything is fine, and you have nothing to worry about, but just to be safe it's worth getting checked out. Just because you are active and enjoy sports doesn't mean your heart is healthy.

I recall at your age having a resting EKG and a couple of cardiac stress tests done on a treadmill, when the HR is taken to the max while monitoring EKG. This was about 25 years ago, so there may be a better way to do it now.

 

[An old Guy]

Originally Posted by JamesAA
My HR was climbing to 160-165 with the greatest of ease, i.e. after running just one pass route. I know if I run another sprint when I'm 165, it'll balloon up to the upper 170s (at least). That scares me. Should it?

More information only causes concern. Get rid of the heart rate monitor. Since you are still alive, you should not be scared.

---

At 65 I work to get my heart rate above 160. If I were willing to work hard enough, I could hit 185.

 

[maydog]

James,

The previous recommendations still apply:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/495990/heart-rate-speeds-up-after-just-a-little-effort
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/495609/red-lining-so-quickly-on-inclines-mountains
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/495645/whats-a-good-heart-rate-target-zone-for-daily-cycling
http://www.cyclingforums.com/t/496047/another-heart-rate-question-this-one-about-red-line-90-zone

You seem pretty hung up over your heart rate data. HR is a moving target and very personal. You will become acutely aware when your HR is reaching your maximum rate - no monitor is needed. From your past posts, it seems that ~160's is a sustainable level of effort.

A hrm is not intended to be lifesaving device, it just isn't that accurate or reliable. Unless advised by a doctor, I would avoid using it as a limiter of your physical activities.

 

[needmoreair]

Originally Posted by JamesAA I'm supposed to run another route but I'm afraid to because of my HR being so high and I know if I run another sprint when I'm 165, it'll balloon up to the upper 170s (at least). That scares me. Should it?

Absolutely not. Heart rate is entirely genetic and doesn't say anything about anything. I know 50 year olds that can hit 200 on all-out efforts. I know others that can't get over 160.

Entirely genetic. Would you worry about it if you didn't know it was that high? Of course not. You wouldn't even think about it. I'd just ditch the hrm altogether. Not a very useful manner of training, especially if you don't know your own personal numbers.

 

[JamesAA]

Cool, and thanks. Very glad to hear this!!!