Heart rate while training - overdoing it?

[Maxf]

Firstly, I’ll be completely upfront and say that I suffer from a lot of anxiety, comes and goes and I’m working through it - but it often focussed on my health (every headache is a tumour, creak is arthritis etc etc).

That aside, I believe I’m actually in pretty ok shape (46 years old, 86kg, work out 4-5 times a week, no issue raised at annual medical).

We bought a treadmill a couple of months ago and have been training with a HR monitor. Generally I do 30 min classes, hiit maybe once a week and tempo runs a few times. I also use a bike and maybe do 40k a week on that too.

My heart rate really seems to be quite fast when I’m running - it gets to 160 very quickly (although I don’t feel like I’m overly exerted - lactic acid gets me before breath unless im right at the maximum) and will ramp up to 170-175 on a normal run and 185-190 if I’m really pushing it for maybe a 20-30 seconds.

So, my question - as I get fitter shouldn’t it be dropping? I haven’t noticed it, although I probably go harder to account for it.

Maximum HR is guided at 220 minus age, but I’m at that level for 70% of my runs, or beyond… am I risking a problem? I’ve read about heart damage from over exercising, which peaks my anxiety and turns something which should be positive into just another worry!

I’ve trained on and off for years - never got super fit but always been ‘ok’ and able to run up a couple of flights of stairs if needed.

[mcelliott]

Overthinking, as you get fitter the effort at say 160 bpm should become less strenuous and so on, seeing big numbers at high intensity is perfectly normal, your heart is designed to take a huge amount of load, nothing to stress about.

[Maxf]

mcelliott said:

Overthinking, as you get fitter the effort at say 160 bpm should become less strenuous and so on, seeing big numbers at high intensity is perfectly normal, your heart is designed to take a huge amount of load, nothing to stress about.

Thank you.

[mcelliott]

Just to make it a bit clearer, so say you run 400m at an average of 170 feeling pretty gassed in a time of 80 seconds, a few weeks of training and you go back and run the same time your average HR should have come down, because your perceived effort should be less due to your increased fitness

[oddman]

Is it a chest strap, wrist or other HRM?

If not chest strap, may not be accurate.

In general HR isn't a particularly helpful metric for gauging intensity as it tends to lag the intensity of exercise in short intervals. Perceived intensity or pace (for running) can be better gauging for intensity and power is certainly better for judging intensity in cycling/machine based exercise

It's really useful for keeping efforts below the aerobic threshold in long z1/z2, low aerobic, fatburning type workouts. HR monitor can be quite useful for finding anerobic threshold HR in FTP or other lactate threshold type test.

Recovery time is a pretty good indicator of fitness ie how quickly your HR comes down after an intense interval. For example if you were doing a 4 minute interval where your HR got to 170 and in recovery you dropped intensity by 50%, your HR was down to 120 withing 30s, this would be pretty decent. If it was still 150 at 30s not so good.

If you train consistently and you get fitter, it is likely that your HR for a given intensity will come down as will your resting HR. If you've already been training regularly and don't change up the intesity and/or duration of exercise, then you're unlikely to see much difference.

Running HR is always a bit higher than cycling for a particular intensity because it is weight bearing

Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 running is a really good resource for understanding training with an HRM.

Edited by oddman on Friday 12th May 16:57

[Maxf]

Thanks both.

I think I’m more of the mindset to run 410m the next time at the same level of exertion, so won’t see the HR come down, but the output will increase.

My concern was more that my HR does seem to go to levels nobody mentions in any of the zones - 46 years old and hitting 190bpm feels a bit like bouncing off the redline in a classic car… and I don’t fancy a rebuild anytime soon.

[Correvor]

I'm 40, my max HR has been around 195 to 200 for a long as I can remember.

Had a look at my data since 2009 - pretty much the same and average HR seems to be in the same ballpark as well depending on type of activity.

I have a colleague who has a similar HR, he's got a good 20 years on me and tells me his hasn't changed either.

I wouldn't worry

[smn159]

220-age is not a good way of finding your max HR. It may well average out at a population level, but there's huge variation within individuals. Much better to measure it - there are a number of ways to do this if you Google it that involve running flat out / uphill.

You can also estimate your HR zones by 'feel' - Zone 2 for example will typically be a 3 in / 3 out breathing pattern with normal conversation possible. Zone 3/4 will be 2 in / 2 out and conversation will be a few snatched words only.

[Ashfordian]

Maxf said:

Thanks both.

I think I’m more of the mindset to run 410m the next time at the same level of exertion, so won’t see the HR come down, but the output will increase.

My concern was more that my HR does seem to go to levels nobody mentions in any of the zones - 46 years old and hitting 190bpm feels a bit like bouncing off the redline in a classic car… and I don’t fancy a rebuild anytime soon.

Your age, weight and HR numbers are very similar to mine, particularly running.

One thing I have not read in your training is any low intensity work. If you feel inclined and it is certainly not a requirement, you could do a bike or run session once a week where you don't let your HR go above say 145bpm (eg base training). I suspect this would yield improvements when you do harder efforts over the long term.

Another test for your own sanity would be to go out for a 20 minute fast paced walk and see what your HR hits. I suspect it would remain low compared to what you are currently seeing. FYI, mine would get to around 115bpm, may 120bpm doing this.

[Kawasicki]

I’m in my late 40‘s, 70kg and usually train between 135 and 170bpm. I regularly hit 190-200 when I put the pedal to the metal.

You’re doing great.

[Maxf]

Ashfordian said:

Your age, weight and HR numbers are very similar to mine, particularly running.

One thing I have not read in your training is any low intensity work. If you feel inclined and it is certainly not a requirement, you could do a bike or run session once a week where you don't let your HR go above say 145bpm (eg base training). I suspect this would yield improvements when you do harder efforts over the long term.

Another test for your own sanity would be to go out for a 20 minute fast paced walk and see what your HR hits. I suspect it would remain low compared to what you are currently seeing. FYI, mine would get to around 115bpm, may 120bpm doing this.

I actually started low intensity training twice a week a month or two ago - I do it on the bike and keep my HR below 145 for 45 mins (did an hour but got bored so dropped it). I tried it running but couldn’t keep my HR low enough without walking a lot. Originally I used 135bpm but couldn’t keep that low!

On a decent walk (I walk a fair bit in/around London) I get to 120bpm or so.

HR monitor is an arm strap but I do have a chest strap somewhere I’ll dig out. I have an Apple Watch for walks/normal stuff.

[oddman]

Ashfordian said:

One thing I have not read in your training is any low intensity work. If you feel inclined and it is certainly not a requirement, you could do a bike or run session once a week where you don't let your HR go above say 145bpm (eg base training). I suspect this would yield improvements when you do harder efforts over the long term.

Agree. The trend for HIIT is really about marketing gear and commercial exercise regimes to people who don't want to exercise for more than an hour or outside in the fresh air and rain.

The data on successful endurance athletes consistently points to a balance of between 70 and 90% time spent training being low intensity/base.

It's easy to understand how your heart adapts to HIIT as it's a bit like an cylinder increasing it's bore and stroke.

What's equally important are the changes that happen in the muscles increased capillary network and mitochondrial density which allow more lactate to be used as fuel thus delaying the onset of fatigue. These adaptations take place at low intensity. There are other advantages of longer, low intensity training such as developing efficiency/skill, mental resilience and weight control. Without this metabolic fitness there is a limit on what HIIT will achieve.

Cardiac and metabolic adaptations happen outside of training sessions so rest days and less intense sessions are important

Once you're in your forties the risk/reward ratio of trying to hit HR max in training escalates significantly.

[GilletteFan]

Heart rate is largely genetic. Those with a more efficient engine will get better output while stressing the chassis less. I train well under my maximum rate - which is a lot lower than 220 minus my age. However, one can train to endure higher heart rates for sustained periods of time. I personally need to control my cardio output as I don't tire easily and my heart rate doesn't go up easily either, so my body can take a real beating at my bodyweight. I do most of my training under 135 bpm.

[mcelliott]

GilletteFan said:

Heart rate is largely genetic. Those with a more efficient engine will get better output while stressing the chassis less. I train well under my maximum rate - which is a lot lower than 220 minus my age. However, one can train to endure higher heart rates for sustained periods of time. I personally need to control my cardio output as I don't tire easily and my heart rate doesn't go up easily either, so my body can take a real beating at my bodyweight. I do most of my training under 135 bpm.

What's bodyweight got to do with it, and the bit about controlling cardio if you don't tire?

[Yahonza]

Maxf said:

Firstly, I’ll be completely upfront and say that I suffer from a lot of anxiety, comes and goes and I’m working through it - but it often focussed on my health (every headache is a tumour, creak is arthritis etc etc).

That aside, I believe I’m actually in pretty ok shape (46 years old, 86kg, work out 4-5 times a week, no issue raised at annual medical).

We bought a treadmill a couple of months ago and have been training with a HR monitor. Generally I do 30 min classes, hiit maybe once a week and tempo runs a few times. I also use a bike and maybe do 40k a week on that too.

My heart rate really seems to be quite fast when I’m running - it gets to 160 very quickly (although I don’t feel like I’m overly exerted - lactic acid gets me before breath unless im right at the maximum) and will ramp up to 170-175 on a normal run and 185-190 if I’m really pushing it for maybe a 20-30 seconds.

So, my question - as I get fitter shouldn’t it be dropping? I haven’t noticed it, although I probably go harder to account for it.

Maximum HR is guided at 220 minus age, but I’m at that level for 70% of my runs, or beyond… am I risking a problem? I’ve read about heart damage from over exercising, which peaks my anxiety and turns something which should be positive into just another worry!

I’ve trained on and off for years - never got super fit but always been ‘ok’ and able to run up a couple of flights of stairs if needed.

Your heart rate reserve should increase as you get fitter and is a better measure. This is related to the difference in resting heart rate and max heart rate. Using HRR, and training based on this, is a useful way of getting physically fit. Your VO2 max is also a good measure of respiratory capacity.

[GilletteFan]

mcelliott said:

What's bodyweight got to do with it, and the bit about controlling cardio if you don't tire?

Body weight effects joints and tendons via repetitive impact.

To answer the second part of your sentence, why push your body when you are training your heart and endurance rather than having shot joints and tendons?

[smn159]

GilletteFan said:

mcelliott said:

What's bodyweight got to do with it, and the bit about controlling cardio if you don't tire?

Body weight effects joints and tendons via repetitive impact.

To answer the second part of your sentence, why push your body when you are training your heart and endurance rather than having shot joints and tendons?

If you're concerned about joints it may be worth thinking about run form. A slow / shuffling gait landing on your heel with a straight leg ahead out in front of you (at one extreme) is going to beat you up much more than a mid foot strike on a flexed knee with a more open stride, regardless of the pace you're running.

Also, the loadings will be different at different paces, so well worth mixing them up rather than doing everything at a single pace.

[Maxf]

Yahonza said:

Your heart rate reserve should increase as you get fitter and is a better measure. This is related to the difference in resting heart rate and max heart rate. Using HRR, and training based on this, is a useful way of getting physically fit. Your VO2 max is also a good measure of respiratory capacity.

My vo2 max is laughably low as measured on my Apple Watch - it’s dropped over the past couple of year into the mid 30s, despite running, cycling and walking almost everywhere. I’m assuming the method of measurement is FUBAR’d rather than me being on the slow decline. A lot of my walking is done pushing a buggy which won’t help and runs/cycles don’t count for measurements.

I’m booking in for a full fitness assessment - vo2 max included, max HR etc so will be interesting to hear what they say.

[Arnold Cunningham]

The heart rate zones are just guidelines. For example, even in my late 30's, when I was fit, I could push my heart rate to 196BPM.

And on a ride - let's say a 50-100 mile ride - I could (and would) average 180BPM for several hours.
Even now (47), it's not hard to hit 180BPM.

What changes (for me, anyway) as I get fitter, is that the amount of work I do for a given HR increases.

[phil4]

Maxf said:

My vo2 max is laughably low as measured on my Apple Watch - it’s dropped over the past couple of year into the mid 30s, despite running, cycling and walking almost everywhere. I’m assuming the method of measurement is FUBAR’d rather than me being on the slow decline. A lot of my walking is done pushing a buggy which won’t help and runs/cycles don’t count for measurements.

I’m booking in for a full fitness assessment - vo2 max included, max HR etc so will be interesting to hear what they say.

I wouldn't trust your apple watch for VO2 max, mine has it at below average, 32.5, because it seems to only measure it while I'm walking the dog (which isn't exercise as the dog stops to sniff every few meters).