Target Heart Rate question

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

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

Quoted message said:

OK, last question for the day. 🙂 According to the info I've read, my maximum target heart rate
(85%) is 162 bpm. I reached this number because the chart at the gym says for my age group (28),
the maximum target heart rate for the most effective range is 85%, which is 27 beats per 10
seconds, or 162 bpm.

I own a heart rate monitor, and used it for the first time the other night. As I ran, I found that
my heart rate was constantly in the range of 175 - 185 bpm. When it rose to 190 bpm, I slowed down
to a brisk walking pace for a minute or so, then stepped the pace back up.

Now, my problem is that I used to run quite frequently up until a year ago, then ran infrequently
for a year, and am just now trying to get back into a regular routine. In the past, I never
monitored my heart rate. I just ran a 5K as fast as I could, at a constant pace. My times were
typically around 25 minutes.

Is it possible that when I was doing this 3 times a week, I was shortchanging myself by keeping my
heart rate so high? Or is it OK? Is 185 bpm an acceptable heart rate for me to maintain for a half-
hour run, or am I over-extending myself?

Any advice from heart-rate experts here? Thanks,

Kevin.

John Galt said:

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Thanks. Got anything *constructive* to add?

Kevin.

I look at it this way, I bought a Proform Trend mill back in the middle of 2002 and I've used it 2-4
times a week since that time. I really don't pay attention so much to the heart rate (my trend mill
is equipped with a grip bar to obtain a heart rate). This is because these calculations are based on
your average person in that age group. But, I feel that my overall health, over the past ten years
has been good. Meaning, I've exercised on a regular basis and tried to eat right. I am at my ideal
body weight for my height. Hell, the last time I was at McDonald's, it was when I was 10 years old.
I got the trend mill because when I turned 28 I believed that my metabolism was slowing a bit, so I
started running. I ran to a speed that I felt comfortable with. I found that if I over exerted
myself during my workout sessions, then over a period of time I would start dreading the next
upcoming workout, hence, I would not work out as much. I figured if I always tried to achieve the
same high level of intensity and worked out less often, I was achieving the same result if I worked
out less intensively and more frequent. Motivation is always the prime key to exercising and I felt
that if I didn't always achieve the same exact workout (or better) like the one before then I was
not going to do it until I could. But that's not true, if I only could do 20 minutes today, then so
be it. You don't always feel the same everyday, why workout like you did. If you are starting to get
back into the groove, just like I did a few months back ( there was a period where 2 a week was
standard), take it slow and build up to a pace that you feel good about regardless what your target
heart rate is. Only you can judge what is too much.

I hope I helped out in anyway,

Marc F (Ontario, Canada)

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

Quoted message said:

John Galt said:

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Thanks. Got anything *constructive* to add?

Kevin.

What I said was constructive. The little bit of dangerous knowledge I was speaking of is that wall
chart in your gym. Useless as [censored] on a bull. Not even a bad substitute for toilet paper in an
emergency. Let me put it this way. If you were showed stats that said the average adult male weighs
190 lbs., and you weighed 160 lbs. would you then worry yourself about being underweight? Of course
not. You would rightly consider factors such as height, body type, age, health, fitness, heredity,
etc. for your own case.

Heart rate charts are simply produced from averages over populations. What is the standard deviation
of the distribution of measurements? Never mentioned. Without that stat the rest, as I said, is
useless. You have to determine your own maximum experimentally before you can effectively use an HRM
as a training aid. Finally, as mentioned in recent discussions in this newsgroup, HRM's can easily
produce erroneous (often high) readings due to high resistance contact with the skin, especially in
the first minutes of an exercise before the chest produces sweat. Is your monitor producing valid
readings? Finally, fit runners have maximum heart rates from 160 and below to 210 and above. I don't
know of any predictive for an individual, but they may exist.

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

Quoted message said:

John Galt said:

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Thanks. Got anything *constructive* to add?

Kevin.

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

Quoted message said:

What I said was constructive. The little bit of dangerous knowledge I was speaking of is that wall
chart in your gym. Useless as [censored] on a bull. Not even a bad substitute for toilet paper in an
emergency. Let me put it this way. If you were showed stats that said the average adult male

weighs

Quoted message said:

190 lbs., and you weighed 160 lbs. would you then worry yourself about

being

Quoted message said:

underweight? Of course not. You would rightly consider factors such as height, body type, age,
health, fitness, heredity, etc. for your own case.

Heart rate charts are simply produced from averages over populations.

What

Quoted message said:

is the standard deviation of the distribution of measurements? Never mentioned. Without that stat
the rest, as I said, is useless. You have

to

Quoted message said:

determine your own maximum experimentally before you can effectively use

an

Quoted message said:

HRM as a training aid. Finally, as mentioned in recent discussions in

this

Quoted message said:

newsgroup, HRM's can easily produce erroneous (often high) readings due to high resistance contact
with the skin, especially in the first minutes of

an

Quoted message said:

exercise before the chest produces sweat. Is your monitor producing valid readings? Finally, fit
runners have maximum heart rates from 160 and

below

Quoted message said:

to 210 and above. I don't know of any predictive for an individual, but they may exist.

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

Quoted message said:

John Galt said:

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Thanks. Got anything *constructive* to add?

Kevin.

Another thing to bear in mind is that gyms don't want their customers to kill themselves
(literally). So they keep all such figures in the very safe, very average range. Treadmills are also
doctored (or designed) so you can't go faster than a rather modest speed (modest for anyone who does
any running at all). There is plenty of stuff on the web about training with an HRM. Check out the
runner's world site, for example, try this link runnersworld.co.ukrunnersworld.co.ukOpen ↗, training, general,
search on HRM. If you want to get really scientific, try pponline.co.ukpponline.co.ukOpen ↗ and look at some
of the articles under "running". FWIW in your case: 165 or so may well be fine for an LSD but for
speedwork you could probably be hitting 200 at your tender age! However, don't take that as gospel:
read up on the subject! Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan

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

Quoted message said:

OK, last question for the day. 🙂 According to the info I've read, my maximum target heart rate
(85%) is 162 bpm. I reached this number because the chart at the gym says for my age group (28),
the maximum target heart rate for the most effective range is 85%, which is 27 beats per 10
seconds, or 162 bpm.

I own a heart rate monitor, and used it for the first time the other night. As I ran, I found that
my heart rate was constantly in the range of 175 - 185 bpm. When it rose to 190 bpm, I slowed down
to a brisk walking pace for a minute or so, then stepped the pace back up.

Now, my problem is that I used to run quite frequently up until a year ago, then ran infrequently
for a year, and am just now trying to get back into a regular routine. In the past, I never
monitored my heart rate. I just ran a 5K as fast as I could, at a constant pace. My times were
typically around 25 minutes.

Is it possible that when I was doing this 3 times a week, I was shortchanging myself by keeping my
heart rate so high? Or is it OK? Is 185 bpm an acceptable heart rate for me to maintain for a half-
hour run, or am I over-extending myself?

Any advice from heart-rate experts here? Thanks,

Kevin,

These heart rate computations sound like they are based on the good old MAX_HR = 220 - AGE
formula. This is at best a statistically-derived rule of thumb, and your actually heart rate may
not be anywhere near 220 - 28 = 192 (in which case 85% would be 163, btw, not 162). Anyhow, you
need to find out *your* MAX HR, not the MAX HR of some statistical averaged population. Then and
only then should you apply the 85%, 60% and whatever% rules you want to follow.

To find out your MAX HR, you would have to be tested. There are more informal ways to do it,
however, though not necessarily recommended for safety reasons. In my case, I have found that at
age 37, my MAX HR runs around 192-195. How did I find this out? By recording my HR at the end of
intense workouts and a couple of tough race endings.

Generally, I don't use %HR to peg my workouts at a certain level.
Rather, I learn what HR corresponds to what pace during training, and use HR
during races to gauge how fast I'm going. As with all things running, YMMV.

--
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º
eNo
"If you can't go fast, go long."
ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º°`°º¤ø¤º°`°º¤ø,,,,ø¤º

I don't own a heart rate monitor, but I do understand the importance of running most of my
workouts at a relatively slow pace in terms of my overall goals of aerobic fitness, burning
calories, and remaining injury free. Heart rate monitors are a tool for approximately measuring
muscle effort. The point in keeping your efforts in the "aerobic" zone is that pushing past that
point, into the anaerobic zone, causes a buildup of lactic acid in the muscles, causes muscle
fatigue that can lead to a breakdown in form, and for these reasons and others is associated with
a greater likelihood of injuries.

So, that said--one very rough gauge of whether your 185 bpm workouts are keeping you mostly within
the aerobic zone (which *roughly* approximates the "lactate threshold," where your muscles start
to produce lactic acid faster than they can flush it): do your muscles feel pretty sore the next
day? If your workouts are leaving you pretty achy, that's a very good sign that you're spending a
lot of time over the lactate threshold, because it's the lactic acid in your muscles that makes
them feel sore.

You can also try to estimate your own personal heart rate zones. Here are three different tests you
might try:

* TEST A: Run 800 meters (1/2 mile) as fast as you can. Take 1:00 walk rest and then run
another 800 meters as hard as you can making sure to sprint the last 200 meters.

* TEST B: Run 1600 meters (1 mile) as hard as you can making sure you sprint all-out the last
400 meters (1/4 mile).

* TEST C: Run 6 repeats of 400 meters on a steep hill at a hard effort increasing the effort on
each hill repeat so that you run the last two repeats all-out. Jog back to the base of the
hill after each repeat and rest about 10 seconds before the next repeat.

There is a time and a place for pushing the lactate and/or anaerobic envelope, once you have built
up a good base of aerobic miles each week, are interested in improving your race times as opposed to
just "staying in shape," and have taken the time to read up on how to incorporate one or two faster
workouts each week, smartly and safely.

Quoted message said:

OK, last question for the day. 🙂 According to the info I've read, my maximum target heart rate
(85%) is 162 bpm. I reached this number because the chart at the gym says for my age group (28),
the maximum target heart rate for the most effective range is 85%, which is 27 beats per 10
seconds, or 162 bpm.

I own a heart rate monitor, and used it for the first time the other night. As I ran, I found that
my heart rate was constantly in the range of 175 - 185 bpm. When it rose to 190 bpm, I slowed down
to a brisk walking pace for a minute or so, then stepped the pace back up.

Now, my problem is that I used to run quite frequently up until a year ago, then ran infrequently
for a year, and am just now trying to get back into a regular routine. In the past, I never
monitored my heart rate. I just ran a 5K as fast as I could, at a constant pace. My times were
typically around 25 minutes.

Is it possible that when I was doing this 3 times a week, I was shortchanging myself by keeping my
heart rate so high? Or is it OK? Is 185 bpm an acceptable heart rate for me to maintain for a half-
hour run, or am I over-extending myself?

Any advice from heart-rate experts here? Thanks,

There are really two issues here.

(1) Gyms, at least in the US, have to worry about lawsuits, thus don't want to tell people to go
above a true 90% MHR without medical clearance. But health clubs are also talking about TOTAL
fitness, including strength, which includes more than just how to improve your 5K time. When
you begin to accumulate lactate by going above 80-85%, you also accumulate muscle damage, which
takes time to recover from, and this reduces your ability to gain strength with weights. So
groups like ACE (the organization that certifies personal trainers in the US) recommend running
at a MHR of 50-85%, and while many here--myself included--would be inclined to describe this as
BS, it works for many people who are not training to run races for PRs.

(2) If you get your maximum heart rate right, 80-85% of that rate is what is known as steady state
running. This is the most efficient part of the aerobic range--provided that you can recover
from the amount of running you do at this range. And while you may eventually want to do some
speedwork faster--tempo runs, mile repeats, 200's/400's and the like--you can improve distance
speed quite rapidly (and gain strength in the weight room at the same time) if you can get in
2-3 workouts of 30-60 minutes each per week.

So, the real issue is to manage to guage your heart rate intensity correctly. Notice, I didn't say
MAXIMUM heart rate, because MHR isn't really what you want to know. What people really want to know
is their anerobic threshold (AT), lactate threshold, or ventilatory threshold (which are all really
different terminology for the same thing). One way of figuring this out is to do a MHR test, which
might be something like 4X800m hard, and then run the last 1-2 minutes as hard as you can. But
another way is to find your (approximate) AT: Start at something slower like a HR of 150, and
gradually increase the pace (treadmill works fine for this); Eventually you will find a point where
the breathing becomes noticeably harder. This point is roughly your AT. For most people, the AT is
about 90% of MHR. Tempo training is done at this pace or HR. 5K training (intervals) is done about
10 bpm faster than this. Steady State running (the upper speed limit for continuous aerobic running)
is done 10-20 bpm lower than this. When you start to run outside, your AT pace will not be the same
as what you do on a treadmill, but the heart rate will translate well.

Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track Coach Brooks Johnson

A few nit picky items...

"Lyndon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:20040213141254.21817.00002049@mb-
m06.aol.com...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, last question for the day. 🙂 According to the info I've read, my maximum target heart rate
(85%) is 162 bpm. I reached this number because the chart at the gym says for my age group (28),
the maximum target heart rate for the most effective range is 85%, which is 27 beats per 10
seconds, or 162 bpm.

I own a heart rate monitor, and used it for the first time the other night. As I ran, I found
that my heart rate was constantly in the range of 175 - 185 bpm. When it rose to 190 bpm, I
slowed down to a brisk walking pace for a minute or so, then stepped the pace back up.

Now, my problem is that I used to run quite frequently up until a year ago, then ran infrequently
for a year, and am just now trying to get back into a regular routine. In the past, I never
monitored my heart rate. I just ran a 5K as fast as I could, at a constant pace. My times were
typically around 25 minutes.

Is it possible that when I was doing this 3 times a week, I was shortchanging myself by keeping
my heart rate so high? Or is it OK? Is 185 bpm an acceptable heart rate for me to maintain for a
half-hour run, or am I over-extending myself?

Any advice from heart-rate experts here? Thanks,

There are really two issues here.

(1) Gyms, at least in the US, have to worry about lawsuits, thus don't

want to

Quoted message said:

tell people to go above a true 90% MHR without medical clearance. But

health

Quoted message said:

clubs are also talking about TOTAL fitness, including strength, which

includes

Quoted message said:

more than just how to improve your 5K time. When you begin to accumulate lactate by going above
80-85%, you also accumulate muscle damage, which

takes

Quoted message said:

time to recover from, and this reduces your ability to gain strength with weights. So groups like
ACE (the organization that certifies personal

trainers

Quoted message said:

in the US) recommend running at a MHR of 50-85%, and while many

here--myself

Quoted message said:

included--would be inclined to describe this as BS, it works for many

people

Quoted message said:

who are not training to run races for PRs.

To my knowledge, the threat of a lawsuit has nothing to do with the supposed "zones", I
have never heard this attributed at all. I am not aware of any connection between going
above 85% of VO2max and accumulating more muscle damage. Yes, it takes more recovery,
but not because of muscle damage. In cases where people do something new (like running
hard), the damage is from the unaccustomed activity not necessarily from what the
intensity is since even a beginning runner will get sore even at low intensities. ACE
is one of many organizations that offer personal trainer certification, not "the".

Quoted message said:

(2) If you get your maximum heart rate right, 80-85% of that rate is what

is

Quoted message said:

known as steady state running. This is the most efficient part of the

aerobic

Quoted message said:

range--provided that you can recover from the amount of running you do at

this

Quoted message said:

range. And while you may eventually want to do some speedwork

faster--tempo

Quoted message said:

runs, mile repeats, 200's/400's and the like--you can improve distance

speed

Quoted message said:

quite rapidly (and gain strength in the weight room at the same time) if

you

Quoted message said:

can get in 2-3 workouts of 30-60 minutes each per week.

define "efficient". In rats anyway, high intensity intervals (equivalent to VO2max workouts)
did a very good job of developing mitochondria, aerobic enzymes, etc. Humans may (and I think
do) have the same capability. In this case you could get better results in a relative short
amount of time.

Quoted message said:

So, the real issue is to manage to guage your heart rate intensity

correctly.

Quoted message said:

Notice, I didn't say MAXIMUM heart rate, because MHR isn't really what you

want

Quoted message said:

to know. What people really want to know is their anerobic threshold

(AT),

Quoted message said:

lactate threshold, or ventilatory threshold (which are all really

different

Quoted message said:

terminology for the same thing).

To a lay person, the three terms may be used interchangeably, but they are not the same
thing. The first term ("anaerobic threshold"😉 is argued by many to be a misleading name
since one does not become "anaerobic" at all. In fact, oxidative processes still make a
substantial contribution. Ventilatory threshold may well lag and there is a school of
thought that what people think it measures is not really being measured at all;
basically that this "threshold" does not coincide with lactate threshold. Practically
speaking, regardless of how one assesses this idea, the correlation between what is
being measured and endurance performance is quite good (Coyle probably has the best
paper using well-trained cyclists).

One way of figuring this out is to do a MHR

Quoted message said:

test, which might be something like 4X800m hard, and then run the last 1-2 minutes as hard as you
can. But another way is to find your (approximate)

AT:

Quoted message said:

Start at something slower like a HR of 150, and gradually increase the

pace

Quoted message said:

(treadmill works fine for this); Eventually you will find a point where

the

Quoted message said:

breathing becomes noticeably harder. This point is roughly your AT. For

most

Quoted message said:

people, the AT is about 90% of MHR. Tempo training is done at this pace

or HR.

Quoted message said:

5K training (intervals) is done about 10 bpm faster than this. Steady

State

Quoted message said:

running (the upper speed limit for continuous aerobic running) is done

10-20

Quoted message said:

bpm lower than this. When you start to run outside, your AT pace will not

be

Quoted message said:

the same as what you do on a treadmill, but the heart rate will translate

well. I disagree that the HR will necessarily be the same. If it is cooler inside on the TM than
outside, one must account for this.

Quoted message said:

Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track

Coach

Quoted message said:

Brooks Johnson

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 23:56:20 GMT, "Sam" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I disagree that the HR will necessarily be the same. If it is cooler inside on the TM than
outside, one must account for this.

Interesting tidbit. I was on the trainer this afternoon and hadn't noticed how hot the room
had become my wife came in opened the door and turned the ceiling fan on. Instantly was
chilled by teh flow of air adn in a matter of minutes my HR dropped about 8 BPM. Same RPM
same gear no other changes except a ceiling fan and colder air from another room.

~Matt

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lyndon "Speed Kills...It kills those that don't have it!" --US Olympic Track

Coach

Quoted message said:

Brooks Johnson

K many formulas are out there to find MAxHR i use 205-half your age =195 i also did the hill test ,
run up and down a hill till u get the highest reading=200 My data maXHR=200 resthr=40 70%=152 hope
this helps , any more feel free to write [email hidden] plodzilla

Kevin said:

OK, last question for the day. 🙂 According to the info I've read, my maximum target heart rate
(85%) is 162 bpm. I reached this number because the chart at the gym says for my age group (28),
the maximum target heart rate for the most effective range is 85%, which is 27 beats per 10
seconds, or 162 bpm.

I own a heart rate monitor, and used it for the first time the other night. As I ran, I found that
my heart rate was constantly in the range of 175 - 185 bpm. When it rose to 190 bpm, I slowed down
to a brisk walking pace for a minute or so, then stepped the pace back up.

Now, my problem is that I used to run quite frequently up until a year ago, then ran infrequently
for a year, and am just now trying to get back into a regular routine. In the past, I never
monitored my heart rate. I just ran a 5K as fast as I could, at a constant pace. My times were
typically around 25 minutes.

Is it possible that when I was doing this 3 times a week, I was shortchanging myself by keeping my
heart rate so high? Or is it OK? Is 185 bpm an acceptable heart rate for me to maintain for a half-
hour run, or am I over-extending myself?

Any advice from heart-rate experts here? Thanks,

Kevin.

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

Quoted message said:

OK, last question for the day. 🙂 According to the info I've read, my maximum target heart rate
(85%) is 162 bpm. I reached this number because the chart at the gym says for my age group (28),
the maximum target heart rate for the most effective range is 85%, which is 27 beats per 10
seconds, or 162 bpm.

The basic formulas (there are several) for Maximum HR vary. The standard error is about 9. Ie,
estimates are within +/-9 for about 70% of the = population. Ie, for about 15% of the population
they are under-estimates by more = than 9% (15 to 20 beats). Formulas for Males:

220 - age (traditional) [Female 226 - age].
206.3 - (0.711 * age) (Londeree and Moeschberger) 217 - (0.85 * age) etc.=20

Males and females differ. I'm _below_ my estimated max (by more than = 9%). Some friends are
the opposite.

Most formulas make allowances for level of fitness.

Target heart rate is a matter of setting a working range: Aerobic, = Threshold, etc. Typically,
Aerobic range is 70%-80% or 75%-85% of max. The Karvonen method uses a Heart Rate Reserve (=3D Max
HR - Resting HR) and 80% of it.

Eg (me): MHR =3D 181. RHR =3D 50. HRR =3D 131.

Target range max (85%) =3D 181*0.85 =3D 154, or (80%) 181*0.8 =3D 145. Karvonen (80%) =3D
50+0.8*131 =3D 155.

How do you find MHR? I'm sure they guys here can tell you. Basically I suggest to run five hard 90
second hills and measure the HR at the end of the last one (before you vomit).=20

Ie, A Target HR on a chart is worth what you paid for it, or even less. =
:-).

If you're not up to measuring your Max HR, the basic aerobic range is = the range you can keep going
for (for 30 minutes or so).=20

Cate.