Exercise heart rate

[bmwmike]

Hello

I'm 47 and exercise on a mountain bike 3-4 times a week, done 220 miles this year as a reference point. My RHR is usually around 50, dipping to low 30's occasionally and on my rides I average 130, with a peak of 174 usually. I really pushed it yesterday up an incline and after the ride the stats showed my peak HR was 194.

I know this is probably nothing to worry about because i have no symptoms whether my HR is 32 (lowest i've seen) or 194 yesterday (highest ever) but.. as i'm not getting younger and my exercise is getting more intense, is there something I can do to "manage" this? Or is it fine to go hell for leather every now and then as long as it doesn't cause pain? Only pain i've ever had is left side of jaw on a long sustained low cadence shallow incline (maybe had it twice), it was basically maximum effort for probably 15 minutes, and i'm pretty sure it was benign as it went as soon as i stopped.

I guess this is probably a complete non-question, apologies if so, but i'm primarily interested in a) doing no harm b) losing weight (need to lose about 10kg) and c) improving my fitness in a sustainable way. Any advice appreciated.

Thanks
Mike

[GregK2]

Been a few threads like this recently in the health section, long and short of its nothing to worry about unless you are experiencing any physical distress as a side effect.

[bmwmike]

Agh you're right, thanks - i should have looked with my glasses on.

Thanks.

[nunpuncher]

Focus on your breathing. Slow it down and breathe deeper. People have a tendency to start to breath shallower, puff and even hold their breath when putting in high effort.

[jeff m]

Back when I was fit.....
A measure I used was my recovery rate, a bit hazy now;) From what I remember I would log the time it took for my heart rate to recover 80%.

So if my at rest was 60, and my end of exercise was 180, I would time how long it took to get back to 84. as I got fitter that recovery time would shorten.
I can't remember who it was, but one pro athlete had a recovery time of 6 seconds, I think mine was around three minutes.

If you die I'm going to delete this post.

[Golfgtimk28v]

I don't trust these hear t rate monitors for two reasons, reliability and also are meaningless really, as they show a number on its own that doesn't really mean a lot. You should really be looking at you VO2 max rate as well.

Heart rates vary between people. If you want to know if you have heart issues you would need an ECG monitor as a start.

[bmwmike]

jeff m said:

Back when I was fit.....
A measure I used was my recovery rate, a bit hazy now;) From what I remember I would log the time it took for my heart rate to recover 80%.

So if my at rest was 60, and my end of exercise was 180, I would time how long it took to get back to 84. as I got fitter that recovery time would shorten.
I can't remember who it was, but one pro athlete had a recovery time of 6 seconds, I think mine was around three minutes.

If you die I'm going to delete this post.

Quoted for posterity


Thanks all. The idea about regulating breathing is a good one. I had covid a couple of years ago and had to relearn breathing through my nose as it's deeper than mouth breathing so I may need to focus a bit more on breathing. Also hydration, I'm terrible at drinking enough and I sweat a lot during exercise (I have to empty my cycle helmet after a ride..!).

I'll take a look at my recovery time too. I'm pretty sure it takes longer than 6 seconds. It takes me longer than that to get back up off the floor lol.

I know the monitors are not all that accurate but more than good enough for what I want. I am not concerned about heart issues am more concerned that I'm over exercising or pushing too hard if that's even possible, or could cause issues in future, etc.

[mcelliott]

Modern HR monitors are very accurate jeez its not 1990 anymore.

[Golfgtimk28v]

mcelliott said:

Modern HR monitors are very accurate jeez its not 1990 anymore.

They are an indicator, but chest worn ones are a lot better, if you want to track tour heart rate and ecg properly. Which considering if you are monitoring your heart rate, makes a lot better sense.

The big issue with HRM watches is as you exercise they become less accurate, that sort of defeats the whole point. Educate yourself you might learn something new.

[mcelliott]

Golfgtimk28v said:

mcelliott said:

Modern HR monitors are very accurate jeez its not 1990 anymore.

They are an indicator, but chest worn ones are a lot better, if you want to track tour heart rate and ecg properly. Which considering if you are monitoring your heart rate, makes a lot better sense.

The big issue with HRM watches is as you exercise they become less accurate, that sort of defeats the whole point. Educate yourself you might learn something new.

[mcelliott]

Golfgtimk28v said:

mcelliott said:

Modern HR monitors are very accurate jeez its not 1990 anymore.

They are an indicator, but chest worn ones are a lot better, if you want to track tour heart rate and ecg properly. Which considering if you are monitoring your heart rate, makes a lot better sense.

The big issue with HRM watches is as you exercise they become less accurate, that sort of defeats the whole point. Educate yourself you might learn something new.

the more you exercise the less accurate they become lol, please explain I'm all ears, I have tracked my hr for over 30yrs, I have done numerous vo2 efforts on my own or under supervision by people far higher qualified than you I suspect.

[MrGman]

I’ve got an apple se watch, and a polar chest strap, both have always showed the same heart rate throughout cardio gym sessions.

[ian in lancs]

I've used Garmin watches for over 5 yrs for running, cycling, HIIT et al. Above posters are right in that a chest strap for HR is more accurate as the watch based monitor can bounce around on the wrist.

Anecdotally Ive had high HR readings from the watch near radar transmitters / airfields. Might be coincidence!

I also find my highest readings during the first 1km especially on the watch. After that warm up it seems to stabilise circa 25bpm lower. I'd get the peak HR you quote checked at least with a chest HRM. Cant be too sure! You only have one heart and that's an impressive 'heart rate reserve'. you've got there.

[stargazer30]

I’m 45 but have a fast HR. Mine peaks at 190 and is at 120 just getting on the bike turning the pedals. I find I can use threshold hr zone but if I stay in that zone too long I’m really beat up afterwards. I tend to keep my HR below 160 as much as possible on my gravel bike.

If you do start to have trouble, e-bikes are a heaven send. I can do a 50mile on my emtb and keep my HR down no problem.

To add I use a Garmin dual band chest strap

[eyebeebe]

Pah, amateur

I'm 42. My resting heart rate is high 40s to low 50s. Max heart rate is around 207. I did a half marathon a few years ago and averaged 186 with a max of 202.

I made the mistake of ticking the wrong box when doing a gym questionnaire when I was in my early 20s and ended up going for tests at the hospital wired up to an ECG while running on a treadmill that got faster and steeper while being monitored by a fit nurse. I hit 225 and told there was no abnormalities.

It's nothing to worry about. just means that your easy training zone might in absolute terms be higher than some people's max heart rate.

[Golfgtimk28v]

mcelliott said:

Golfgtimk28v said:

mcelliott said:

Modern HR monitors are very accurate jeez its not 1990 anymore.

They are an indicator, but chest worn ones are a lot better, if you want to track tour heart rate and ecg properly. Which considering if you are monitoring your heart rate, makes a lot better sense.

The big issue with HRM watches is as you exercise they become less accurate, that sort of defeats the whole point. Educate yourself you might learn something new.

the more you exercise the less accurate they become lol, please explain I'm all ears, I have tracked my hr for over 30yrs, I have done numerous vo2 efforts on my own or under supervision by people far higher qualified than you I suspect.

30 years, you seem proud of your ignorance. Studies have also shown accuracy of wrist HRM drops as you excercise, not sure why you don't seem to know these very basic detail.

A couple of recent papers, more out there.

mhealth.jmir.org
https://mhealth.jmir.org › ...
Accuracy of Optical Heart Rate Sensing Technology in Wearable Fitness ...

""However, users should avoid relying entirely on these readings to indicate exercise intensities, as these devices have a tendency to produce erroneous, extreme readings, which might misinterpret the real-time exercise intensity.""

https://hackaday.com/2020/04/07/reliability-check-...

""During activity, errors in the consumer-grade wearables climbed to an average of 10.2 BPM and 15.9 in the research-grade wearables""

Apple watches seem most accurate..

[mcelliott]

Nah I stick to my real life experience thanks, but well done for searching the outer reaches of the internet.

[peew]

In the gym and running my garmin wrist based watch seems accurate.

It is completely inaccurate when cycling though on the road, much lower that reality.

However I have had also had problems with a chest based one when descending at high speed on a road bike with my jersey unzipped, I think the wind was fluttering it causing it to read over 200

[Yahonza]

bmwmike said:

I know this is probably nothing to worry about because i have no symptoms whether my HR is 32 (lowest i've seen) or 194 yesterday (highest ever) but.. as i'm not getting younger and my exercise is getting more intense, is there something I can do to "manage" this? Or is it fine to go hell for leather every now and then as long as it doesn't cause pain? Only pain i've ever had is left side of jaw on a long sustained low cadence shallow incline (maybe had it twice), it was basically maximum effort for probably 15 minutes, and i'm pretty sure it was benign as it went as soon as i stopped.

I guess this is probably a complete non-question, apologies if so, but i'm primarily interested in a) doing no harm b) losing weight (need to lose about 10kg) and c) improving my fitness in a sustainable way. Any advice appreciated.

Thanks
Mike

Yes there is, I would suggest anaerobic threshold training, which of course will involve knowing your maximum heart rate and using a monitor be that chest or wrist strap. That way you train your system to get used to highish levels of lactic acid but without overwhelming yourself with maxed out training. Some notes on it here from a rowing perspective - https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/tips-and-general-info/anaerobic-threshold

[bmwmike]

Yahonza said:

Yes there is, I would suggest anaerobic threshold training, which of course will involve knowing your maximum heart rate and using a monitor be that chest or wrist strap. That way you train your system to get used to highish levels of lactic acid but without overwhelming yourself with maxed out training. Some notes on it here from a rowing perspective - https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/tips-and-general-info/anaerobic-threshold

Thank you, very interesting. The calculation they give on finding the exercise max rate gives me 174, which is pretty much what I get on a normal ride. Lots of good info on that site, cheers.