Max heart rate zone?

[Upsie]

When I use the elliptical machine my heart rate is in the "peak" zone most of the time. Should I be concerned about this? I'm only 2 months into using my fitbit and starting an exercise program, and I'm currently 60+ lbs overweight. I can keep it in "cardio" but it feels like I'm going ridiculously slow, to the point my Charge HR doesn't even auto-recognize it as elliptical exercise some times. I have a bad knee and the elliptical puts less stress on it than trying to jog.

I typically do 30-60 minutes elliptical 4-5 days a week. Today fitbit said I was in the peak zone 55 out of 59 minutes on the elliptical. Should I back off? Is this going to end up harming me somehow? I'm 34 and female if that matters on the heart rate zone.

[bcalvanese]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

Have you had a stress test done and know your true MHR?

You are probably at a very high fitness level and maybe your MHR is higher than what fitbit uses (220 - age).

---

 I have not had a formal stress test but I do know my MHR because of interval training and 5K races.  The end of a 5K race is probably more stress than any doctor would be willing to subject me to

My max HR is higher than predicted but just to be clear, MHR isn't based on fitness -- it's based on genetics and age. Resting heart rate is based on genetics and age at a baseline but then gets lower based on fitness.

---

Have you tried calculating your cardio zone based on HRR (heart rate reserve)?

MHR - RHR = HRR

HRR * .60 + RHR = lower cardio limit

HRR * .85 + RHR = upper cardio limit

My cardio range is  113 - 136, but if I calculate it based on HRR it would be 123 - 147.

I'm 58 and my stress test MHR just happens to be the same as the 220 - age calculation (162).

[shipo]

@Upsie, got it.  I have to take my hat off to you for keeping with it; if I was limited to indoor eliptical I'd probably have a real problem getting motivated.  🙂

[shipo]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

My max HR is higher than predicted but just to be clear, MHR isn't based on fitness -- it's based on genetics and age. Resting heart rate is based on genetics and age at a baseline but then gets lower based on fitness.

---

That's a popular misconception regarding Max Heart Rate; like you said, fitness level has nothing to do with max, only resting and sleeping.

[Upsie]

@shipo

It's boring as heck sometimes but between that and my diet it's working well so far...so that keeps me motivated for now 

[bcalvanese]

---

@FitBeforeFifty wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

Have you had a stress test done and know your true MHR?

You are probably at a very high fitness level and maybe your MHR is higher than what fitbit uses (220 - age).

---

 I have not had a formal stress test but I do know my MHR because of interval training and 5K races.  The end of a 5K race is probably more stress than any doctor would be willing to subject me to

My max HR is higher than predicted but just to be clear, MHR isn't based on fitness -- it's based on genetics and age. Resting heart rate is based on genetics and age at a baseline but then gets lower based on fitness.

---

I did not mean your MHR was higher due to your fitness level. I meant it was higher than the 220 - age calculation. I probably should have made that clearer.

[FitBeforeFifty]

---

@USAF-Larry wrote:

The vast difference between people in their prime trying to reach what they consider "peak performance" and people in their senior years - such as me, in my 70's - trying to maintain a healthy lifestyle, seems have gotten lost in the ether somewhere. 

---

I don't think the difference is lost on me but let's consider the context of this thread. The OP in this thread is a 34 year old interested in maximizing fat loss. The advice regarding heart rates is targeted toward the OP and not someone in their 70s trying to recover from injury and health issues.

To maximize fat loss you need to maximize intensity. There is no reason for the OP to reduce the intensity to fit inside the cardio zone when the OP's primary goal is weight loss. 

[djbarker]

Hi, I recommend double checking your heart rate with an alternative method. My fitbit oversetimates my heart rate when I run, so it might be dong the same for you. Once you have verified your heart rate, then take the steps recommended by others.

[shipo]

---

@djbarker wrote:

Hi, I recommend double checking your heart rate with an alternative method. My fitbit oversetimates my heart rate when I run, so it might be dong the same for you. Once you have verified your heart rate, then take the steps recommended by others.

---

The other, and arguably better, option is to simply ignore your heart rate entirely and simply concentrate upon your breathing (instructions posted here: https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Get-Moving/Max-heart-rate-zone/m-p/1408634#M24873)

[USAF-Larry]

---

@shipo wrote:

The other, and arguably better, option is to simply ignore your heart rate entirely and simply concentrate upon your breathing (instructions posted here: 

---

I will NEVER ignore my heart rate! Two heart attacks is quite enough for me. After I get the periodic thallium stress test and echocardiogram, the cardiologist goes over the results with me, discussing my maximum heart rate, and what level of exercise I need to do to maintain or improve my cardiovascular system.  I'll not ignore that!  And, fortunately, the Charge HR tremendously help me in that effort.

[shipo]

---

@USAF-Larry wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

The other, and arguably better, option is to simply ignore your heart rate entirely and simply concentrate upon your breathing (instructions posted here: 

---

I will NEVER ignore my heart rate! Two heart attacks is quite enough for me. After I get the periodic thallium stress test and echocardiogram, the cardiologist goes over the results with me, discussing my maximum heart rate, and what level of exercise I need to do to maintain or improve my cardiovascular system.  I'll not ignore that!  And, fortunately, the Charge HR tremendously help me in that effort.

---

And given your history I would never even think to suggest you should; my comments were targeted toward @djbarker.  🙂

[djbarker]

Thinking about how heavy you are breathing is definitely a good idea for regulating your exercise intensity,  but monitoring your heart rate gives different information than breathing, since many factors affect your heart rate. E.G. A racing heart may be a sign that you are too hot - my heart goes extremely fast on hot days. So I run a lot slower,to try and keep my HR down.

So do both.

P.S congrats on the weight loss Upsie - that's very impressive work!

[shipo]

---

@djbarker wrote:

Thinking about how heavy you are breathing is definitely a good idea for regulating your exercise intensity,  but monitoring your heart rate gives different information than breathing, since many factors affect your heart rate. E.G. A racing heart may be a sign that you are too hot - my heart goes extremely fast on hot days. So I run a lot slower,to try and keep my HR down.

So do both.

P.S congrats on the weight loss Upsie - that's very impressive work!

---

I would argue if your breathing is comfortable, even on really hot days, your heart rate is irrelevant.

Think about it this way, runners have been training in the heat for a very-VERY long time; like eons before real-time heart rate tracking was even a thought, and yet the folks who advocate heart rate training would  have you think it is dangerous for your heart rate to go up.  Here's a clue, if you're otherwise health, it isn't a bad thing.

[bcalvanese]

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@djbarker wrote:

Thinking about how heavy you are breathing is definitely a good idea for regulating your exercise intensity,  but monitoring your heart rate gives different information than breathing, since many factors affect your heart rate. E.G. A racing heart may be a sign that you are too hot - my heart goes extremely fast on hot days. So I run a lot slower,to try and keep my HR down.

So do both.

P.S congrats on the weight loss Upsie - that's very impressive work!

---

I would argue if your breathing is comfortable, even on really hot days, your heart rate is irrelevant.

Think about it this way, runners have been training in the heat for a very-VERY long time; like eons before real-time heart rate tracking was even a thought, and yet the folks who advocate heart rate training would  have you think it is dangerous for your heart rate to go up.  Here's a clue, if you're otherwise health, it isn't a bad thing.

---

I get the breathing thing and I exercise in at least a pace that I am huffing and puffing (unless I'm doing a recovery session), but I also like to know what my heart is doing and I like to know what zone I'm in.

There is certainly no harm in monitoring both, because there are factors that could effect one, or the other, or both.

[shipo]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@djbarker wrote:

Thinking about how heavy you are breathing is definitely a good idea for regulating your exercise intensity,  but monitoring your heart rate gives different information than breathing, since many factors affect your heart rate. E.G. A racing heart may be a sign that you are too hot - my heart goes extremely fast on hot days. So I run a lot slower,to try and keep my HR down.

So do both.

P.S congrats on the weight loss Upsie - that's very impressive work!

---

I would argue if your breathing is comfortable, even on really hot days, your heart rate is irrelevant.

Think about it this way, runners have been training in the heat for a very-VERY long time; like eons before real-time heart rate tracking was even a thought, and yet the folks who advocate heart rate training would  have you think it is dangerous for your heart rate to go up.  Here's a clue, if you're otherwise health, it isn't a bad thing.

---

I get the breathing thing and I exercise in at least a pace that I am huffing and puffing (unless I'm doing a recovery session), but I also like to know what my heart is doing and I like to know what zone I'm in.

There is certainly no harm in monitoring both, because there are factors that could effect one, or the other, or both.

---

Agreed, knowing one's heart rate is certainly an interesting metric and one which I keep a eye on, however, my concern is way too many people buy the whole 220-Age thing and take it way too literally and cheat themselves out of a good workout because they incorrectly think they've entered a heart rate zone which is too high.  

[bcalvanese]

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@djbarker wrote:

Thinking about how heavy you are breathing is definitely a good idea for regulating your exercise intensity,  but monitoring your heart rate gives different information than breathing, since many factors affect your heart rate. E.G. A racing heart may be a sign that you are too hot - my heart goes extremely fast on hot days. So I run a lot slower,to try and keep my HR down.

So do both.

P.S congrats on the weight loss Upsie - that's very impressive work!

---

I would argue if your breathing is comfortable, even on really hot days, your heart rate is irrelevant.

Think about it this way, runners have been training in the heat for a very-VERY long time; like eons before real-time heart rate tracking was even a thought, and yet the folks who advocate heart rate training would  have you think it is dangerous for your heart rate to go up.  Here's a clue, if you're otherwise health, it isn't a bad thing.

---

I get the breathing thing and I exercise in at least a pace that I am huffing and puffing (unless I'm doing a recovery session), but I also like to know what my heart is doing and I like to know what zone I'm in.

There is certainly no harm in monitoring both, because there are factors that could effect one, or the other, or both.

---

Agreed, knowing one's heart rate is certainly an interesting metric and one which I keep a eye on, however, my concern is way too many people buy the whole 220-Age thing and take it way too literally and cheat themselves out of a good workout because they incorrectly think they've entered a heart rate zone which is too high.  

---

100% agree with that. Mine just happens to be what the 220 - age calculation comes out to. I was 57 when I had a stress test and mine was 163 accourding to the stress test. That is not the case with many people so I think anyone who wants to start doing cardio should have a stress test done for 2 reasons.

1. To make sure their heart is healthy enough.

2. To know their max heart rate.

Not sure but I think you can get your MHR by sprinting balls to the wall a few times and get your heart rate up to max. you just need a good way to measure it (like a chest strap monitor).

[shipo]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

Not sure but I think you can get your MHR by sprinting balls to the wall a few times and get your heart rate up to max. you just need a good way to measure it (like a chest strap monitor).

---

Yeah, I've heard there are several ways of determining max heart rate; I cannot offer any opinions as to whether there is any decent level of accuracy when it comes to Max.  One of the ways is basing one's max upon their 5K times, however, that doesn't work for me; consider the following:

• 04-Aug-2016: Final 100 meters of a 5K race; my heart rate hit 160 bpm (average was 126).
• 17-Aug-2016: Final 1 mile of today's 10-mile training run; my heart rate hit 170 (average was 133).

Funny thing though, there have been a few runs over the last couple of years where I was killing it climbing a long hill and had my heart rate bump up into low the 180s.  So, what do I consider my MHR?  Don't know, but I'm guessing it is somewhere between 185 and 190, which, considering I'm 59 is pretty high.

[bcalvanese]

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

Not sure but I think you can get your MHR by sprinting balls to the wall a few times and get your heart rate up to max. you just need a good way to measure it (like a chest strap monitor).

---

Yeah, I've heard there are several ways of determining max heart rate; I cannot offer any opinions as to whether there is any decent level of accuracy when it comes to Max.  One of the ways is basing one's max upon their 5K times, however, that doesn't work for me; consider the following:

• 04-Aug-2016: Final 100 meters of a 5K race; my heart rate hit 160 bpm (average was 126).
• 17-Aug-2016: Final 1 mile of today's 10-mile training run; my heart rate hit 170 (average was 133).

Funny thing though, there have been a few runs over the last couple of years where I was killing it climbing a long hill and had my heart rate bump up into low the 180s.  So, what do I consider my MHR?  Don't know, but I'm guessing it is somewhere between 185 and 190, which, considering I'm 59 is pretty high.

---

What are you using to measure it?

If it's the optical HRM on your fitbit Surge, I would not trust that to be accurate enough. If I was going to measure mine that way I would use my Polar H7 chest strap monitor.

[shipo]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

Not sure but I think you can get your MHR by sprinting balls to the wall a few times and get your heart rate up to max. you just need a good way to measure it (like a chest strap monitor).

---

Yeah, I've heard there are several ways of determining max heart rate; I cannot offer any opinions as to whether there is any decent level of accuracy when it comes to Max.  One of the ways is basing one's max upon their 5K times, however, that doesn't work for me; consider the following:

• 04-Aug-2016: Final 100 meters of a 5K race; my heart rate hit 160 bpm (average was 126).
• 17-Aug-2016: Final 1 mile of today's 10-mile training run; my heart rate hit 170 (average was 133).

Funny thing though, there have been a few runs over the last couple of years where I was killing it climbing a long hill and had my heart rate bump up into low the 180s.  So, what do I consider my MHR?  Don't know, but I'm guessing it is somewhere between 185 and 190, which, considering I'm 59 is pretty high.

---

What are you using to measure it?

If it's the optical HRM on your fitbit Surge, I would not trust that to be accurate enough. If I was going to measure mine that way I would use my Polar H7 chest strap monitor.

---

When I have the band on my Surge cinched down to the fourth hole it matches my old Garmin Forerunner/Polar chest strap combo almost exactly*.  The accuracy was enough to allow me to retire the older hardware in favor of the much more convenient Surge.  Unfortunately the condensation issue on my Surge is making it hard to use and will most likely result in its early demise.  😞

* See the image in this post:

https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Be-Inspired/Band-tightness-and-Heart-Rate-tracking/m-p/1512558#M3937...

[bcalvanese]

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

Not sure but I think you can get your MHR by sprinting balls to the wall a few times and get your heart rate up to max. you just need a good way to measure it (like a chest strap monitor).

---

Yeah, I've heard there are several ways of determining max heart rate; I cannot offer any opinions as to whether there is any decent level of accuracy when it comes to Max.  One of the ways is basing one's max upon their 5K times, however, that doesn't work for me; consider the following:

• 04-Aug-2016: Final 100 meters of a 5K race; my heart rate hit 160 bpm (average was 126).
• 17-Aug-2016: Final 1 mile of today's 10-mile training run; my heart rate hit 170 (average was 133).

Funny thing though, there have been a few runs over the last couple of years where I was killing it climbing a long hill and had my heart rate bump up into low the 180s.  So, what do I consider my MHR?  Don't know, but I'm guessing it is somewhere between 185 and 190, which, considering I'm 59 is pretty high.

---

What are you using to measure it?

If it's the optical HRM on your fitbit Surge, I would not trust that to be accurate enough. If I was going to measure mine that way I would use my Polar H7 chest strap monitor.

---

When I have the band on my Surge cinched down to the fourth hole it matches my old Garmin Forerunner/Polar chest strap combo almost exactly*.  The accuracy was enough to allow me to retire the older hardware in favor of the much more convenient Surge.  Unfortunately the condensation issue on my Surge is making it hard to use and will most likely result in its early demise.  😞

* See the image in this post:

https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Be-Inspired/Band-tightness-and-Heart-Rate-tracking/m-p/1512558#M3937...

---

Yea the optical sensors do that. My Garmin fenx 3 HR is even a little finicy, and it cost's 600 bucks. But the technology is getting better and more reliable. I have A/B'd several of the optical sensors with my Polar H7 and Garmin chest strap monitors and they are pretty close for the most part, and for what I do they are fine (within a beat or 2). But if I needed precision i would go with the chest strap. My fenix 3 HR can aslo pair with a chest strat if needed.

You may want to consider a more advanced device once your Surge bites the dust, since you are an advanced runner.

I use my fenix 3 HR for all my exercise sessions, and I just have a fitbit One that I keep in my pocket so I can do the step challenges and stuff.

[shipo]

---

@bcalvanese wrote:

You may want to consider a more advanced device once your Surge bites the dust, since you are an advanced runner.

---

Given I use the HR monitor more as a data metric than as a guide for how to conduct my workouts, the Surge is pretty much perfect for what I need; errr, excepting of course the longevity of the device.

The above is where the relatively new to market Vivoactive HR gets its toe in the door (I am Fitbit's customer to lose), it seems to be purposely built to compete head-to-head with the Surge, but has a much more robust design and build.