I saw a post here the other day about someone concerned about exceeding their target heart rate. Just to let people know from my background as a former competitive runner in high school and college, it is not believed that 220 - your age is an ideal formula for determining max heart rate. The less fit you are, the more appropriate this is. There are various complex formulas that calulate maximum heart rate, taking into account VO2 max and other individualized factors. But for the fit, and particularly those who are older but have maintained good cardiovascualr fitness, experts believe 220 - half your age is a good formula for determining max heart rate. Obviously most people in this forum, including myself now, are more intersted in building muscle than endurance competition. But I wouldn't worry if you're exercising slightly above your chosen target heart rate given by the 220- your age formula, so long as you're not exhausting yourself and are experiencing muscle gains. This is particularly true if you are older.

THANK YOU for this post. I knew there had to be more to the max hr equation than a simple age subtraction. 80% max hr feels like im sleep walking almost, so I knew something was fishy with that.

I might ask a doctor too about this (next time i see one).


I saw a post here the other day about someone concerned about exceeding their target heart rate. Just to let people know from my background as a former competitive runner in high school and college, it is not believed that 220 - your age is an ideal formula for determining max heart rate. The less fit you are, the more appropriate this is. There are various complex formulas that calulate maximum heart rate, taking into account VO2 max and other individualized factors. But for the fit, and particularly those who are older but have maintained good cardiovascualr fitness, experts believe 220 - half your age is a good formula for determining max heart rate. Obviously most people in this forum, including myself now, are more intersted in building muscle than endurance competition. But I wouldn't worry if you're exercising slightly above your chosen target heart rate given by the 220- your age formula, so long as you're not exhausting yourself and are experiencing muscle gains. This is particularly true if you are older.


EDIT#1: Going along with what jsbrook said - i found this website. http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm

EDIT#2: I just tryed the site out for myself and it basically just calculated the 220-age max hr. pretty lame. i guess its ok for informational reading.

No problem. As well as that standard formula not being optimal, a lot of exercise machines and even some lower quality heart rate monitors don't accurately detect heart rate. If your reading seems crazy, trust the body and not the machine. Good luck with it and the doc if you go.
They might be back in phila., but I'll also see if I can dig out my old track journals and training logs and find some better formulas for caluculating heart rate and/or links to some of the better information websites on the subject. If I can find em, I'll post to the forum for anyone who might be interested

THANK YOU for this post. I knew there had to be more to the max hr equation than a simple age subtraction. 80% max hr feels like im sleep walking almost, so I knew something was fishy with that.

I might ask a doctor too about this (next time i see one).





EDIT#1: Going along with what jsbrook said - i found this website. http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm

EDIT#2: I just tryed the site out for myself and it basically just calculated the 220-age max hr. pretty lame. i guess its ok for informational reading.

I do all my cardio outside by running, and i use a 34$ Polar hr monitor.

Whatever max hr equations there are, i think the most accurate would calculate by both age and resting hr. I heard from someone on here that lance armstrong has a resting hr of 35, so you would think his max hr would be MORE than someone out of shape with a resting hr of 70 or 80.

my rest-hr is usually between 44-50, and when im running at hr=165, im not even close to breaking a sweat, but technically im at about 85%maxhr. just doesnt seem right.

[just brainstorming, no response nessesary]

All web references im finding are coming up with crazy formulas that all come out to be the same number. i need a website that'll tell me my maxhr is 300 or something.


No problem. As well as that standard formula not being optimal, a lot of exercise machines and even some lower quality heart rate monitors don't accurately detect heart rate. If your reading seems crazy, trust the body and not the machine. Good luck with it and the doc if you go.
They might be back in phila., but I'll also see if I can dig out my old track journals and training logs and find some better formulas for caluculating heart rate and/or links to some of the better information websites on the subject. If I can find em, I'll post to the forum for anyone who might be interested

I do all my cardio outside by running, and i use a 34$ Polar hr monitor.

Whatever max hr equations there are, i think the most accurate would calculate by both age and resting hr. I heard from someone on here that lance armstrong has a resting hr of 35, so you would think his max hr would be MORE than someone out of shape with a resting hr of 70 or 80.

my rest-hr is usually between 44-50, and when im running at hr=165, im not even close to breaking a sweat, but technically im at about 85%maxhr. just doesnt seem right.

[just brainstorming, no response nessesary]

All web references im finding are coming up with crazy formulas that all come out to be the same number. i need a website that'll tell me my maxhr is 300 or something.Since you are using a Polar HR Monitor why don't you just use their formula? At Polar's site

http://www.polarusa.com/targetzone/default.asp

It still put's you around 79% in the Aerobic Fitness range. It's not definitive, but that's what Polar is in the business of. Remember time of day, weather conditions, etc. can make a difference on your heart rate when running.

That's impressive if you can hold 165bpm over a long period of time. When I run 8 1/2 min miles over a 3 mile span my heart rate is in the low to mid 150's most of the run. :bow:

wh0areume,

When calculating percentage of maximum hr, I leave out the resting heart rate. I think this is significantly more accurate. So for you, 165 hr is about 77%. You'd have to climb to 176bpm to be at 85%. Maybe 176bpm is easy for you, too.

If you really want to know about maximum hr, you can ask you doctor and maybe he'll order a stress test for you. They'll hook you up to machines that are completely accurate and put you on a treadmill and they'll give you a workout like you've never had before. They will push you to the maximum, really. Your heart will not be able to pump any faster -- then you'll know your mhr for sure.

I
my rest-hr is usually between 44-50, and when im running at hr=165, im not even close to breaking a sweat,

Interesting, since I have the opposite problem. My resting is mid to high 40's, and I'm maxed at 165 - 10mph on a 3% incline on a treadmill. 6mph jog just about gets me above 120. I've checked with taking my pulse and it's correct.

That's impressive if you can hold 165bpm over a long period of time. When I run 8 1/2 min miles over a 3 mile span my heart rate is in the low to mid 150's most of the run. :bow:

I guess thats another thing that confuses me about heart rate, im glad you brought it up. the question I ask is why is my heart getting up that high if im in such great cardio shape? I know that because my resting HR is so low, it easily implys im in good shape - but why, when im hardly making an effort, does my hr hit 165?

to me - i would think the fact that you can run that much and keep your heart that LOW is what's impressive.

so i guess the fact that you said im impressive and then say what your hr is when you run, which impresses me alot more than my 165, followed by a bow - confuses the hell out of me based on my lack of knowledge :)



williamso - actually, I think i'm going to do that. This topic has peaked my interest as of late, so i'll make the appointment.

now that we're on the topic: for max fat loss, anthony ellis states in his book that 70% is the start of where fat burn takes place, and 85% is when you start getting into endurance training; and to stay between the two. I've then seen swolecat post saying to stay between 65% and 75%.

I guess the logical thing to do is a set-intersection between the two intervals coming up with "stay between 70% and 75% for max fat loss".

Just sucks that it doesnt feel like a workout for me based on the information i know now - which is why i need the stresstest :D :spaz:

Interesting, since I have the opposite problem. My resting is mid to high 40's, and I'm maxed at 165 - 10mph on a 3% incline on a treadmill. 6mph jog just about gets me above 120. I've checked with taking my pulse and it's correct.


hmm... what is your max hr calculated to be?



it seems more and more weird that my heart gets up so high so easily while im running.


EDIT: AHHHHHHAA! could it beeee, that because im running in nearly below-zero wind-chill temperatures, that my body is trying to both keep me moving AND keep my body warm at the same time, THUS increasing my heart rate to compensate for both? (i'm assuming you'r not using the treadmill outside ;))

EDIT#2: I've never ran while wearing a heartrate monitor during warm temperatures.

No, no, no. You might think maximum heart rate would keep increasing with greater fitness, but it doesn't. Even elite athletes don't have a much different maximum heart rate than normal, healthy exercisers. What's different, as you said, is the resting heart rate. Also, the amount of stress (through workout) that you can inflict on the system before reaching higher heart rates, the amount of time you can workout in more intense workout zones, and recovery time. The main point of my post was to point out that the traditional 220-age formula is not very valid, particularly as we age because it presumes a significant loss of fitness that does not occur in older individuals who exercise well and regularly. Therefore, the 220-half your age formula is a better guideline. Your maximum heart rate is definitely not 300. The other important point is that the heart rate monitors are just guidelines (and I'm not sure that a $34 one is very high quality). You need to go by how you feel. As a team we did not use actual hearate monitors. But 80-90% is basically considered threshold running. It is analogous to HIT here. A tough workout-not to be done for more than 20 or so consecutive minutes. You should not be breathless. And you should be able to speak. But if you're doing it right, it's definitely too intense to carry a conversation. The 65%-75% 'heart-rate' should be comfortable but not necessarily easy. I hope I didn't make things worse with that initial post...

I do all my cardio outside by running, and i use a 34$ Polar hr monitor.

Whatever max hr equations there are, i think the most accurate would calculate by both age and resting hr. I heard from someone on here that lance armstrong has a resting hr of 35, so you would think his max hr would be MORE than someone out of shape with a resting hr of 70 or 80.

my rest-hr is usually between 44-50, and when im running at hr=165, im not even close to breaking a sweat, but technically im at about 85%maxhr. just doesnt seem right.

[just brainstorming, no response nessesary]

All web references im finding are coming up with crazy formulas that all come out to be the same number. i need a website that'll tell me my maxhr is 300 or something.

Yes. This is true. There are other equally painful ways such as running up a steep hill full throttle.

wh0areume,


If you really want to know about maximum hr, you can ask you doctor and maybe he'll order a stress test for you. They'll hook you up to machines that are completely accurate and put you on a treadmill and they'll give you a workout like you've never had before. They will push you to the maximum, really. Your heart will not be able to pump any faster -- then you'll know your mhr for sure.

I hope I didn't make things worse with that initial post...


No don't worry - you're point was clear. I just wanted to do a little brainstorming about heart rate, what effects it, etc, and how people differ. (the thread topic was "heart rate" allowing multiple child topics to arrizze if need-be ;))


ok - if what i said previously is true about the cold weather causing my heart rate to go up with much more ease - am i still getting the same quality cardio workout (for fat purposes) while running in the cold and using the 70-75% philosophy? or do i step it up to compensate for the cold? <--- this is a really good question i think!

One other suggesstion...
If you really feel strongly about doing targeted heart rate training as opposed to just judging your cardio workouts by how your body feels, try going to runnersworld.com and doing a search. Search for 'target heart rate', 'heart rate training', 'max heart rate' etc... Hopefully you'll find what your looking for. You might also try searching for heart rate monitors. They should have a review and evaluation of different ones (what's good and what's crap). Good luck

THANK YOU for this post. I knew there had to be more to the max hr equation than a simple age subtraction. 80% max hr feels like im sleep walking almost, so I knew something was fishy with that.

I might ask a doctor too about this (next time i see one).





EDIT#1: Going along with what jsbrook said - i found this website. http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/maxhr.htm

EDIT#2: I just tryed the site out for myself and it basically just calculated the 220-age max hr. pretty lame. i guess its ok for informational reading.

Good-glad the point came across. As for running in the cold (or extremely hot temperatures), yes it does put extra stress on the body. To achieve the same pace, you will have to work a little harder. Your heart rate will be higher at a lower speed than in comfortable weather although the difference should not be too great. But since you are not competing, stay in your 70-75% range or the correct perceived effort. It doens't matter if you're going slightly slower than in better weather. Working out at a higher intensity will just shift you more from fat burning metabolism to glucose burning. This is not necessarily bad and the calories burned themselves are not lower as someone suggested in a previous thread. But it does not seem to be what you want. Stay at the same perceived effort level/'heart rate' whatever the weather.

No don't worry - you're point was clear. I just wanted to do a little brainstorming about heart rate, what effects it, etc, and how people differ. (the thread topic was "heart rate" allowing multiple child topics to arrizze if need-be ;))


ok - if what i said previously is true about the cold weather causing my heart rate to go up with much more ease - am i still getting the same quality cardio workout (for fat purposes) while running in the cold and using the 70-75% philosophy? or do i step it up to compensate for the cold? <--- this is a really good question i think!

From http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/fatburn.htm

High Intensity sessions - just as good!
The implication from all this research is that if you wish to burn maximum amounts of fat then you should train in the 68 to 79% MHR window. The reality is that if you train at higher intensities you can burn just as much fat - you cannot be serious - read on

If you cycled along at 50% VO2max, fat would provide about 50%, on average, of the energy you needed to keep going. If you cycle along at 75% VO2max, fat would provide 33% of the required calories. Thus, the slower workout sounds better from the fat breakdown perspective - or does it?

A moderately fit athlete exercising at 50% VO2max generally consumes about 220 calories during a 30 minute workout. If the same athlete works out at 75% VO2max, 330 calories are burned during the same period. Of course, 50% of 220 calories and 33% of 330 calories yield an identical number of calories coming from fat - 110.

I think this is contrary to what most on this site believe. Not so much that you can burn as much fat when you exceed your target zone, but where those other calories come from. It seems most here would tell you that the calories burnt that aren't from fat jeopardize your lean mass.

I agree with you completely. Of course, exercising at a higher intense burns a greater number of total calories. I don't know how anyone could believe otherwise. I don't know why a lower percentage of calories coming from fat would jeopardize lean mass but that does seem to be what some on this board believe. I believe (damn me for zoning out during Coach's lectures on exericise physiology or I would know for sure) that the remaining calories come from tapping glycogen stores. We should have enough glycogen stores that the body does not to break down muscle to fuel the workout. I'm not claiming to be an expert by any means, however. I do know interval training (high intensity cardio for a prescribed time and then a low intensity recovery period; repeat sequence for the desired length of workout) is considered one of the most effective fat burning techniques. Can someone explain the rationale behind high intensity cardio being detrimental for muscle gains?

From http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/fatburn.htm

High Intensity sessions - just as good!
The implication from all this research is that if you wish to burn maximum amounts of fat then you should train in the 68 to 79% MHR window. The reality is that if you train at higher intensities you can burn just as much fat - you cannot be serious - read on

If you cycled along at 50% VO2max, fat would provide about 50%, on average, of the energy you needed to keep going. If you cycle along at 75% VO2max, fat would provide 33% of the required calories. Thus, the slower workout sounds better from the fat breakdown perspective - or does it?

A moderately fit athlete exercising at 50% VO2max generally consumes about 220 calories during a 30 minute workout. If the same athlete works out at 75% VO2max, 330 calories are burned during the same period. Of course, 50% of 220 calories and 33% of 330 calories yield an identical number of calories coming from fat - 110.

I think this is contrary to what most on this site believe. Not so much that you can burn as much fat when you exceed your target zone, but where those other calories come from. It seems most here would tell you that the calories burnt that aren't from fat jeopardize your lean mass.