Jump to content

If you knew your heart would explode at 162 BPM


Further

Recommended Posts

If I knew FOR SURE, I think I'd take it to 75% of explode, around 121 of the example of 162, because less would restrict me from the semi-vigorous exercise needed for good long-term health and more would remove the reasonable buffer to some sudden palpitation - possibly linked to any meds I might be taking at the time - that might kick-it up to a higher rate in a short time. I do monitor my heart rate during vigorous exercise - see below for how it led to insurance-ok'd heart tests.

BUT...I do have a questionable habit: choosing to complete a steep or long hill in the shortest time practical when I know I can do it in 5 minutes of less, even when I know I'm exceeding 90% of my theoretical max, rationalizing that it's more taxing on my heart to prolong the effort than to complete it. I have never asked a physician if that makes sense. I see my excellent physical therapist today - Oct. 18, my family doc on Oct. 26 and the surgeon who repaired my rotator cuff on Nov. 8 and will ask them - the surgeon is the team physician for the AA Baseball Bowie Baysox and may have some insight. If I get a definite answer, I try to remember to report it here.

I use the chest strap with my Garmin 510 (and my previous Garmin 305) and, at 60, I did the "220 beats/min. - your age" calculation to get 160 as a theoretical max. and set my Garmin to beep at 90% max: 144, to warn me when I'm overdoing it.

But my recorded data during those rationalized uphill rides shows I've gone over 160 several times - hitting 167 at age 64 three years ago. Maybe my true max. is 167, maybe a little higher, but I have no desire to intentionally push myself to find out.  So it's still set to buzz at 144.

MONITORING HEART RATE AND HOW IT LED TO INSURANCE-OK'D HEART TESTS:

I monitor my heart rate while exercising vigorously and, just before I returned to cycling at age 60 in 2011, I uploaded my Garmin 305 (now I have a 510) data from walking, printed out a map with times on it, and showed how I was reaching 90% of theoretical max. just walking up a long, semi-steep hill.  My family doc said that was not necessarily bad, but was enough evidence to order a big batch of tests (fortunately my insurance pays 100% for tests) and over three days I had a consultation with a cardiologist with some basic measurements, a radioactive dye test for leaking valves, a visual sonogram test for leaking valves, and a treadmill test.  The result was that my heart was just fine.  I hope all the long distance running I did from my teens to coaching high school track and cross country in my 30's to 50's did as much good for my heart as it was bad for my joints!

 

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before HR monitors I would just run/cycle to exhaustion and stop, heart rate was not even checked.  When I started using them my MAX calculated to 160 so I would set the alarm at 154, because my normal in action rate was 147/148.  When the flight surgeons ran their tests on me, age 55, they let me go up to 174 on the treadmill.  I haven't done any really aerobic exercise in more than several years.  I need to start though.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Dirtyhip said:

Athletes have a larger reserve HR than average people.  We have more HR range.

I think that range decreases with age.  I know the 160s are tough but manageable.  The 170s are really hard, and only for a short time.  The 180s are really hard, and we're looking at less than a minute for that.  I suspect someone in their 20s can regularly go over 200.  I can't image that now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Square Wheels said:

I think that range decreases with age.  I know the 160s are tough but manageable.  The 170s are really hard, and only for a short time.  The 180s are really hard, and we're looking at less than a minute for that.  I suspect someone in their 20s can regularly go over 200.  I can't image that now.

I few years ago (still in my sixties) I would finish a triathlon at 185. This year I finished at 173. I keep it in the 160’s until almost done because I can’t maintain that effort.  That 220 minus your age is about as useful as BMI. It all depends on your condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MickinMD said:

I use the chest strap with my Garmin 510 (and my previous Garmin 305) and, at 60, I did the "220 beats/min. - your age" calculation to get 160 as a theoretical max. and set my Garmin to beep at 90% max: 144, to warn me when I'm overdoing it.

But my recorded data during those rationalized uphill rides shows I've gone over 160 several times - hitting 167 at age 64 three years ago. Maybe my true max. is 167, maybe a little higher, but I have no desire to intentionally push myself to find out.  So it's still set to buzz at 144.

Mick, this is a monstrous case of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).  You Max is NOT 160 (that 220-age is bullshit). Your 90% is NEVER simply you max hr (and yours is fake to begin with) * 90%.  You have to account for your resting HR.

Long story, short - it is probably worse to pay attention to artificial and false HR limits than it is to simply go by feel and track (without looking) your numbers over time. Figure out your real "max" and use correct calculations to get the various ranges/thresholds for training.

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Zephyr said:

I would have a good session of "Dirty Naked Wife Time" while wearing a heart monitor.  Whatever the highest reading is after that, I'd go with that number for my max.

I think a good session of "Dirty Neighbor's Naked Wife Time" while wearing a heart monitor would be better. Have her hubby come home unexpectedly and see where you HR hits. That is probably a better guestimate at your max.

Tom

  • Heart 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Razors Edge said:

I think a good session of "Dirty Neighbor's Naked Wife Time" while wearing a heart monitor would be better. Have her hubby come home unexpectedly and see where you HR hits. That is probably a better guestimate at your max.

Tom

WofZeph is a better choice.  Trust me.  :whistle:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...