Can having your heart rate at 90% load or higher (192 BPM for 14 yr old) damage your heart?

[423536271827]

Can having your heart rate at 90% load or higher (192 BPM for 14 yr old) damage your heart during excercise?

[shipo]

What are you basing your calculation on?  If you're relying on the 220-Age formula, forget it, the formula has long since been debunked.  The fact is, some young people cannot reach 192 and others can easily surpass that rate; the same with some older folks.  Long story short, only a cardiologist can answer your question, and only then after extensive testing and analysis.  

[geobeck]

That's good to know. One of my worries is that, according to my Fitbit, my heart reaches insane levels when I'm cycling. I'm breathing hard, but don't feel like I'm straining; I usually keep a pace I could maintain for a lot longer than the distance I'm riding--but my Fitbit tells me I'm averaging 160 and spending a lot of time over 180. But when I get home, it takes about two minutes for my breathing to recover to my normal (slower than average) rate, even if my resting heart rate is higher than average. 

I'm 51, so the 220-age formula would suggest something is very wrong. But I've been cycle-commuting to work year-round for the last eight years in Edmonton Alberta, which suggests that everything is great... even if some of my co-workers question my sanity when it hits -30°C.

[423536271827]

How much load in percent you THINK you are using? The Fitbit's calculations are incorrect because 180 means >100% load which is impossible. 94% average load is unreasonable. @geobeck 

[geobeck]

Paraphrasing shipo's question, what do you mean by "load"? On what basis is 180 > 100% "load"?

[shipo]

---

@423536271827 wrote:

How much load in percent you THINK you are using? The Fitbit's calculations are incorrect because 180 means >100% load which is impossible. 94% average load is unreasonable. @geobeck 

---

Not even remotely impossible, Fitbit's calculations are as bogus as a $3 bill.  Like I wrote before, the 220-Age formula, the formula used by Fitbit, has long since been debunked; it's so bad it doesn't even qualify as junk science, it qualifies as "Pull a formula out of a hat and call it good".

[geobeck]

Reminds me of how doctors still use 98.6°F as the definition of average core temperature, even though a more recent population study came up with a value of 98.2. Or how BMI is used as a universal measure of health, even though any significant muscle mass throws it right out the window.

I wonder if it came from statistical analysis of a limited population. 

[423536271827]

---

@geobeck wrote:

Paraphrasing shipo's question, what do you mean by "load"? On what basis is 180 > 100% "load"?

---

To calculate your heart load %, you do (current HR/(220-age)). 169 BPM for you is 100% load.

[shipo]

---

@423536271827 wrote:

---

@geobeck wrote:

Paraphrasing shipo's question, what do you mean by "load"? On what basis is 180 > 100% "load"?

---

To calculate your heart load %, you do (current HR/(220-age)). 169 BPM for you is 100% load.

---

No, FAIL!  Never-ever use 220-Age, if it is correct 1 time in 100, that would be a high estimate.

[geobeck]

My question is, based on what? Who camne up with that formula? Is it based on clinical research, statistical analysis, or did some non-researching doctor pull it out of their head?

@shipo says it's not valid. I know from personal experience that my heart rate exceeds the "maximum" during strenuous exercise, even if Fitbit is overstating it during moderate exercise. I'm also substantially healthier than average for my age, being a regular cyclist for more than 40 years.

If you make a claim, you have to back it up with a source. So far you're just making a statement and claiming it's fact. And "My gym teacher told me" is not a source. Believe me, teachers can be wrong about their subject. 

[shipo]

The problem with debunking the whole 220-Age thing is it has been taken as "gospel" for too darned long now, people believe it to be just that, the gospel truth.  The fact is, if you research this on the internet, there are a wide range of reasonably authoritative sites and studies which debunk 220-Age.  In fact, there are lots of posts on that very subject here in the Fitbit forums.

Looking back to one of the very first runs I did when I got my first Fitbit (the old and much maligned Surge), I was 58 years old and in pretty good shape; I went out for a 9-mile / 14.5km run on a very hilly course (over 1,000' or 300m of climbing).  Per the 220-Age formula my absolute maximum heart rate should have been 162 beats per minute; yeah, about that, my run took 78 minutes and 17 seconds to complete and my *average* heart rate for that span was 161 beats per minute.  Clearly the formula is horribly in error for me or I'm writing this posthumously some 6 years after I died.  😛

[geobeck]

The Wikipedia page on heart rate  includes some interesting commentary, including a quote from Dr. William Haskell, one of the people who came up with the formula, who stated that it "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule people's training."

It cites an example of maximum heart rates within one Olympic rowing team (athletes in their 20's, presumably determined through stress tests) varying from 160 to 220.

Bottom line, the most important factor seems to be the delay between elevated and resting heart rate after exercise. 

[Heybales]

---

@geobeck wrote:

My question is, based on what? Who camne up with that formula? Is it based on clinical research, statistical analysis, or did some non-researching doctor pull it out of their head?

@shipo says it's not valid. I know from personal experience that my heart rate exceeds the "maximum" during strenuous exercise, even if Fitbit is overstating it during moderate exercise. I'm also substantially healthier than average for my age, being a regular cyclist for more than 40 years.

If you make a claim, you have to back it up with a source. So far you're just making a statement and claiming it's fact. And "My gym teacher told me" is not a source. Believe me, teachers can be wrong about their subject. 

---

Indeed - studies have shown the aspect of keeping fit as you age throws the whole idea of losing 1 bpm per year out the window.

I've lost maybe 4 bpm in the last 20 yrs, not really sure when 194 stopped being my max, as I'd get VO2max tests to find my Lactate Threshold and train to that number for the HR zones. HRmax tests would be on my own, and no appropriate treadmill available for many years now.

Besides the fact the starting point is highly variable. Some people have a race bike heart, some have a diesel.

From the bell charts I've seen through the years - you have a better chance of being outside a calculated10 bpm range then within, especially for women.

Which is why Fitbit allows manually changing HRmax value at least. It would be nice if they'd offer guidance on that though.

@423536271827 - what would happen if everyone trusted they got the avg 20 mpg in their car all the time, and ran close to empty?

While 20mpg may end up being true for some vehicles - there are plenty it doesn't, with driving styles even having an influence.

[Heybales]

---

@423536271827 wrote:

Can having your heart rate at 90% load or higher (192 BPM for 14 yr old) damage your heart during excercise?

---

From actual tested values - not necessarily unless you have some heart issues. Some young people do, some old people do - if a concern get tested.

I've tested for Lactate Threshold at 92% of my tested HRmax - so that was for a 30 min effort, and the whole point of that level is I could have kept going.

Well, until I ran out of glucose in the muscles anyway, then a hard nose-dive to crawling.

That is not an unusual ability at all, many that purposely train can reach 90-95% of HRmax.

That's what my training that year led to. But it was training. Doing sprints is going to make that happen too, but that's minimal time at that level, and not actually the type of training that allows working at that level.

There were some small studies that seemed to indicate potential problems, but in general no.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2405907/extreme-exercise-heart-health-study

Now, my tested HRmax at that time was 194.

My predicted based on 220-age would have been 178.

So very incorrect, in fact that 92% was 177/178, so if my predicted was my real HRmax I would have only been able to hit it for 10-15 sec perhaps.

So your formula for "predicted" values would be a bad prediction.

[423536271827]

What's a better way to calculate it? Right now my Arduino hooked up to my Fitbit now blows its cooling fan at me at full speed thinking that I'm straining... @Heybales 

[geobeck]

There is no perfect calculation. Follow the Wikipdia link in my reply above for some insight. It's a well-formatted article.

The only reliable way to calculate your own maximum and optimal target heart rates is a stress test. If that's important to you, talk to your doctor. Otherwise, exercise in a way that works for you. Manually adjust your Fitbit rates until your cooling fan turns on when you think you need it. Or get on a bike, where you don't need a cooling fan.

[Heybales]

---

@423536271827 wrote:

What's a better way to calculate it? Right now my Arduino hooked up to my Fitbit now blows its cooling fan at me at full speed thinking that I'm straining... @Heybales 

---

Unless doing specific training to raise the Lactate Threshold, most people are around 85% HRmax when at the top of the aerobic zone.

This is the level where you could keep running with effort, and speak very short sentences without it messing up your pace, like maybe 3-7 words before you need to take a few breaths to recover.

Lower part of this zone is being able to speak a whole sentence but then needing to get in some breaths.

So if you find that level - 3-7 words spoken, few breaths required to recover, another 3-7, ect - you are probably at 85% of HRmax.

Math it out for your HRmax figure, and then come up with zone boundaries for bottom of aerobic, recovery, anaerobic, ect - if that's needed for the training you want to do.

For the Fitbit, for sure change that setting for your profile, as it'll aid in getting better calorie burn estimate.

You mentioned cooling fan, what can make HR a difficult training method, calorie estimate method, and perhaps using HR for fan control - your HR will elevate for the purpose of helping to cool the body - more blood to surface for cooling effect, faster HR to cycle it more.

So the HR can easily go up that has no reason for burning more calories or having a harder workout.

But for your purpose it seems about perfect, that's when you'd want it.