Heart rate zones

[Lobita]

Hi. I'm pretty new at this, so bear with me. I have a Fitbit charge HR. I use the automatic heart rate zones which I guess are calculated from my age. I have not tried to calculate my max pulse "manually", I don't know how much difference this will be? What I observe is that when out running, my pulse it at "peak" for most of the time. Today t.ex. I ran for 48 minutes, I had 1 minute fat burn, 4 minutes cardio and 44 peak. This cannot be correct can it? I try to push myself a bit, but I'm not completely pumped for almost the whole time. I am not very fit and 10-15 kg overweight.
My resting heart rate is 47 (I wear the Fitbit when I sleep).
Any suggestions to why this happens? Is my maximum pulse affected by my rhr somehow?

[USAF-Larry]

Hi, @Lobita!  If you set up your tracker with your personal information - sex, age, height, and weight - it is calulating your max heart rate zones based on 220 minus your age, with the Peak at 85% of the max, the cardio at 70%-84% max, and the fat burn at 50%-60% of the max.  If your run shows you are in the peak most of the time you are exercising, either your heart rate is high because you are not physically fit, or your heart rate zones are set too low. You may need to go into the app and change the Custom Heart Rate Zones.

[JohnRi]

Unfortunately there is no way to tell if your heart rate is too high or too low.  A good friend of mine can get her heart rate up there on the treadmill, but her doctor tells her that is TOO HIGH and she'll get a heart attack.

Bottomline you need to consult with your doctor.  You may need to have a nuclear stress test done on your heart to determine a true max heart rate.  And then use that to create custom zones on your fitbit.

My calculated max is 171, my nuclear stress test found it was 165.  But that was 9 months ago, 67 lbs heavier, and in very poor shape then.  I bet my max is higher today.  But I rarely get my heart above 140....  I had my fastest 3 mile walk, just under 4 mph average, and my heart never was higher than 146.  That was me pushing it as hard as I could for 47:32.  I was walking over 4 mph at the 146 peak, during a mile at 14:26. 

It is ok to have you heart up there in the peak zone, but only if it's safe.  Best bet, talk to your doctor.

[emili]

I guess I am not sure why you might think its wrong. I run for about 40 minutes at 6.8 miles per hour (8:49) and for 60% of the run I am in peak. I have been running for about a year- but have been cardio and strength gym rat for over two. It depends on the intensity of your run and how fit you are. The coming down is also an important measure- how quickly does your heart beat slow from peak to normal. If you are not experiencing pain, dizziness, fainting, excessive shortness of breath or complete inability to talk- I would think you are doing alright. For sure check with you doctor if you are concerned.

[FitBeforeFifty]

---

@JohnRi wrote:

My calculated max is 171, my nuclear stress test found it was 165.  But that was 9 months ago, 67 lbs heavier, and in very poor shape then.  I bet my max is higher today. 

---

@JohnRi, your max heart rate is based on genetics and age and not fitness. Your heart rate during a particular activity will go down as you become more fit as will your resting HR but this doesn't apply to max HR. If your calculated max was 171 it will probably go down as you age but not really change as fitness improves.

[FitBeforeFifty]

As @JohnRi said, you should check with your doctor.

When I consulted a sports medicine specialist he told me that:

"given I had no heart problems and no elevated risk factors (high blood pressure, etc...) that I shouldn't be concerned with working out at higher heart rates." Of course this advice is specific to me and my situation and all situations can be unique.

When I run on my own, I'm rarely in the cardio zone and almost always in the peak. When I run with my lunch running group I have to run a lot slower to match the pace of the group and might be in the cardio zone in that case but that's at a pace well below my current fitness.

Based on MY situation, I don't give peak vs. cardio a second thought. I run at a pace that I can sustain for the length of run and the conditions. For someone like me with no heart problems and/or risk factors, I would never try to artificially limit myself to the cardio zone -- unless it's for endurance training effect (which is an entirely different topic). 

[shipo · Accepted solution]

@FitBeforeFifty, agreed 100%.

I could care less which arbitrary "zone" I'm working out in, or for that matter, if I change zones many times during a workout.  When I run, I run to the conditions and to how I feel, and if half way through say, a 10 mile run I decide I want to go longer or faster I do; I never give the zone a second thought.

[betpchem · Accepted solution]

The other thing I would say, @Lobita, is that it depends on where on your wrist your Fitbit device is. My heartrate is most accurately tracked about 2 fingers above the wrist bone (as they say in the directions). Usually my device is closer to my wristbone and my heartrate is measuring higher than it is.

[bcalvanese]

---

@Lobita wrote:
Hi. I'm pretty new at this, so bear with me. I have a Fitbit charge HR. I use the automatic heart rate zones which I guess are calculated from my age. I have not tried to calculate my max pulse "manually", I don't know how much difference this will be? What I observe is that when out running, my pulse it at "peak" for most of the time. Today t.ex. I ran for 48 minutes, I had 1 minute fat burn, 4 minutes cardio and 44 peak. This cannot be correct can it? I try to push myself a bit, but I'm not completely pumped for almost the whole time. I am not very fit and 10-15 kg overweight.
My resting heart rate is 47 (I wear the Fitbit when I sleep).
Any suggestions to why this happens? Is my maximum pulse affected by my rhr somehow?

---

If you are over weight and not at a good fitness level, I would recommend to stay in the lower cardio zone and slowly work toward the higher cardio zone as your fitness level improves. The peak zone is not recommended for long periods of time, and you should probably consult with your doctor about training at higher heart rates. Also, if you don't think your max HR is correct (220 - age), you can get a stress test done to determine this.

There are some on this forum who are elite athelites and tend to forget that most people here are not at a high fitness level, and are just trying to get to a normal fitness level. They may be giving information that could cause someone to harm themself and maybe just not realizing it.

Any reputable doctor will tell you the importance of the heart rate zones, and how to gradually improve your fitness level.

[FitBeforeFifty]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

Any reputable doctor will tell you the importance of the heart rate zones

---

@bcalvanese

In this article there are 2 VERY reputable doctors who disagree with you.

They essentially say what I said ... 

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/the-truth-about-heart-rate-and-exercise

"If you have heart disease and your doctor has forbidden you to exercise strenuously, monitoring your heart rate during workouts is a good way to avoid pushing your heart into the danger zone. ...  But otherwise, there's no pressing need to know your heart rate."

"The majority of people simply don't need to monitor their heart rate," Gerald Fletcher, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., tells WebMD.

...

Edward F. Coyle, PhD, agrees. He's a professor of kinesiology and health education at the University of Texas at Austin and director of the university's Human Performance Laboratory. ...  Coyle says that for most people, it's not essential to track heart rate during exercise.

[bcalvanese]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

Any reputable doctor will tell you the importance of the heart rate zones

---

@bcalvanese

In this article there are 2 VERY reputable doctors who disagree with you.

They essentially say what I said ... 

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/the-truth-about-heart-rate-and-exercise

"If you have heart disease and your doctor has forbidden you to exercise strenuously, monitoring your heart rate during workouts is a good way to avoid pushing your heart into the danger zone. ...  But otherwise, there's no pressing need to know your heart rate."

"The majority of people simply don't need to monitor their heart rate," Gerald Fletcher, MD, professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla., tells WebMD.

...

Edward F. Coyle, PhD, agrees. He's a professor of kinesiology and health education at the University of Texas at Austin and director of the university's Human Performance Laboratory. ...  Coyle says that for most people, it's not essential to track heart rate during exercise.

---

There is also a cardio surgeon (forget the guys name) who was an elite athelete. He started noticing patterns in people he performed surgery on who trained for hours and hours per day at very high heart rates. He started noticing the same types of heart issues as he was finding in people how were over weight, had bad diets, and were at poor fitness levels. He believes that over training is just as bad as being sedentary and having a bad diet.

Every doctor I ever asked about exercise has told me the same thing.

Start out in the lowert heart rate zones and slowley work your way up to about 85-90% of max, and above that should be ok for short bursts.

You may be at such a level that this way does not work for you any more, but I dont think it is good advice to give to a regular person who is trying to get to a normal fitness level, and not even knowing their medical history or anything.

[FitBeforeFifty]

@bcalvanese we aren't talking about training multiple hours per day at very high intensity and over training. The OP is running for less than one hour.

[bcalvanese]

@FitBeforeFifty I dont think keeping your heart rate in the peak zone for an hour is safe advice to give someone who is over weight and not at a good fitness level. The peak zone is recommended for short bursts. Like sprinting for a few minutes for example. Not steady state.

For someone like you who can not get any more benafit from the cardio zone anymore, it is still argueable (IMO) that maybe you are over training.

[Lobita]

Thank you for all your replies! I am reading this from my mobile phone so I may have touched a button marking the post as solved. Sorry about that.
Anyway. I appreciate your concern about my health, medical advice over the Internet may be dangerous. When talking about fitness level, I guess it depends who I compare it to, but I would say normal level. I don't have any heart disease or other conditions that would influence my pulse. When I run (once or twice a week) I usually run somewhere between 3 and 6 miles at a pace of just below 10 minutes pr mile. I sometimes run longer, but then at a slower pace. If I was to run just staying in my cardio zone, I wouldn't even be slightly heavy breathed, and I am convinced I would not get in better shape. I will try to figure out my maximum pulse and recalculate my zones. Thanks again for helping!

[FitBeforeFifty]

@shipo, I retract my previous position on 220 - age if this is how people are going to use it.

@bcalvanese, most people that aren't fit would not be able sustain a true peak for 48 minutes. Either the OP is more fit than she gives herself credit or the 220 - age formula is off for her. I'm guessing it's a combination of both because I don't know any out of shape people that can run for 48 minutes. If you want to use HR zones as some sort of absolute limit, you should know your max HR. 

[FitBeforeFifty]

@Lobita, I agree with you. I think you are doing fine and like I said in my previous post, you aren't giving yourself enough credit for being fit. There aren't any unfit people capable of running 6 miles at a 10:00 pace.

[bcalvanese]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

@shipo, I retract my previous position on 220 - age if this is how people are going to use it.

@bcalvanese, most people that aren't fit would not be able sustain a true peak for 48 minutes. Either the OP is more fit than she gives herself credit or the 220 - age formula is off for her. I'm guessing it's a combination of both because I don't know any out of shape people that can run for 48 minutes. If you want to use HR zones as some sort of absolute limit, you should know your max HR. 

---

I agree with knowing your max HR, and my stress test results gave the same number as the 220 - age formula, but I think people should get a stress test or even measure it themselves (if they have some sort of device to measure their heart rate while full out sprinting/biking/swimming) to be sure.

I don't really mean to use the HR zones as an absolute limit, but more of a general guideline to use for fitness development and safety, and I think people who are just starting out should at least know about it.

I do tend to go overboard with safety and i'm sorry for being too critical about your comments.

[Khalid_khan]

I really dunno if being at peak hr in particularly activity makes u fit or unfit...being able to keep that acticity for long n being injury free afterwards certainly shows theres no problem continuing that for reference heart rate graph for 1 of my run....i have did it few times in last 3 months

[Khalid_khan]

Btw my max what blaze showes in run was 193 n rhr is 64 bpm

I have been doing weight lifting for very long time(around 6 years off n on) n pretty new to the running around 4 months

Maybe is this the reason i easily bear 1 hour high intensity workout as i used to do in gym..i dunno

[shipo]

---

@Khalid_khan wrote:

Btw my max what blaze showes in run was 193 n rhr is 64 bpm

I have been doing weight lifting for very long time(around 6 years off n on) n pretty new to the running around 4 months

Maybe is this the reason i easily bear 1 hour high intensity workout as i used to do in gym..i dunno

---

Weight lifting and running do not condition the heart in the same manner, so your weight lifting probably isn't a factor.  I'm more inclined to believe the 220-Age formula is highly inaccurate for you (like it is for me).