Working out heart rate to high?

[drhodes444]

Hello everyone,

     So ive been running for about a year now and i didnt really have any tracking device aside from map my run on an iphone. So i got my fitbit surge and apperantly when i go for runs (3 miles 3 days a  week 5 miles twice a week) that my heart rate is right around 195 beats a minute after the first half mile or so and it stays that way for the duration of the run. Now that seems ridiculously high as everything i have researched says i should never enter a heart rate zone that high for any kind of substantial duration. However, i dont really feel like exhausted or challenged during those workouts. my breathing is fine, i dont feel like im going to pass out, i actually find it a quite enjoyable pace. If i step on the gas for a quarter mile or so i can hit about 210 bpm and then i feel challenged. if i slow down to the "recommended" zones i feel like im limping along. I wouldnt consider myself out of shape by any means (but also not a hardened athleete) as im at an 8 minute mile during these runs. and my resting heartate is right around 55 or so. So i guess my question is, what gives? Should i be concerned? is my surge not tracking accurately?  Thanks in advance.

[SunsetRunner]

The Surge is good, but it is not a medical grade instrument.

If you are at all concerned, you should see your MD about this.

[Doug · Accepted solution]

The problem with generic age based formulas for max heart rates (like 220 - age, etc) is that they approximate a typical maximum.  But individuals can and do vary significantly.  If you can sustain 195 bpm for miles and not feel challenged and your breathing is "fine", then at least one of these is true:

 1) You aren't getting an accurate heart rate

 2) Your individual max heart rate is significantly above the average (even without knowing your age)

That's enough above the typical range that I'd encourage you to try to borrow a HRM from somebody else and see if it measures the same as your Surge.  Preferably a chest monitor.

Secondly,  perform tests to determine YOUR max heart rate and zones.  Web searches should yield lots of info here.  Personally, I use the assessment workouts in the iOS version of Digifit iCardio, and let it also calculate the zones for me based on my resting heart rate and measured maximum.  My own max HR is about 20 beats above average for my age.

If a second HRM gives the same readings, then you may want to seek a medical opinion or at least a qualified trainer.

[drhodes444]

I will give that a try, dont know why i didnt think of it. My buddy has a chest monitor i can use. And i am 22 for the record. 

Thanks Doug.

[Heybales]

The other part of it is being out of shape aerobically, the HR will skyrocket as you are burning mostly carbs for the workout.

If you have no interest in endurance and just a workout for so many minutes - no issue except it is harder on the body to be at that level - whether it feels like it or not.

I'm betting besides some lack of aerobic fitness making it inflated, you may just have some normal inflation to the HR.

If you want to train the aerobic fat-burning system more for endurance - you'll need to get the body not to shoot the HR up so high as you start out. Which means you'll need to slow down.

Or you are getting a static elevated reading.

Are you wearing long sleeve jersey made from nylon or such?

Dittos to genetic HR, you may just have a Honda heart compared to diesel, it runs high compared to others running low.

Since you have been running for awhile - here's a HRmax and VO2max test.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/heybales?month=201403

[Bearcat323]

I was on my ellipitcal the other day which has a built in heart monior for polar, I also was using my polar beat app to monitor my heart rate. I was very surprise and happy to find my fitbit surge was completely on point with Both my Polar app and chest strap, But for  some strange reason, the calorie count is alway consistantly less then half the amont of the other two. Age, Height & weight are the same on all 3.

[Heybales]

---

@Bearcat323 wrote:

I was on my ellipitcal the other day which has a built in heart monior for polar, I also was using my polar beat app to monitor my heart rate. I was very surprise and happy to find my fitbit surge was completely on point with Both my Polar app and chest strap, But for  some strange reason, the calorie count is alway consistantly less then half the amont of the other two. Age, Height & weight are the same on all 3.

---

The elliptical may have the ability to display the HR from a HRM, but that doesn't mean it is using that info to estimate calorie burn.

Since HR is optional on machines, and you could very easily NOT be grabbing the handles that would also display HR - most machines only display, don't compute with it.

I suggose they could have a 2nd program that is used if a Polar HRM is being used - assuming it's not going to come off so compute with it. Polar may have even given their formula for them to use, or at least a black box formula.

Is this the cheaper Polar that has no settings for VO2max and self-test and athlete profile?

Those make some big assumptions, and their calorie burn is way off the nicer units - which can still be way off reality, even using lab measured stats for HRmax and VO2max.

If Fitbit is smart, they are using a public research study formula for estimating VO2max based on amount of weekly time exercising, resting HR, and BMI (height/weight), and calculated HRmax. Same one the nicer Polar's use.

With that figure, they can then use a public research study formula for calorie burn that uses that VO2max estimate. Which also happens to have been sponsored by Polar. It's not their current formula though.

Actually, if the machine could measure the watts applied to move the platforms, that would be the most accurate method with avgWatts.

Here's info on Polar accuracy of expensive unit.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

[SunsetRunner]

Wow. You seems fit. I'm puzzled at my heart rate too. During my run my heartbeat is 180. Is there a chart that we can see versus the age to compare? Btw I'm 49 yrs old and I'm using Charge HR. 

[Bearcat323]

I'm actually using the the Polar h7 Bluetooth chest strap along with the polar beats app. The polar on the Elliptical is built In and I don't have to use the handles. As I said before all 3 devices has the same HR reading but my fit bit count for calories is always half of what both polar says
@siit if you follow the maffetone method, (180 minus your age) this will give to your maximum heart rate for Increase fat burning. Most people HR is too high!

[Heybales]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

Wow. You seems fit. I'm puzzled at my heart rate too. During my run my heartbeat is 180. Is there a chart that we can see versus the age to compare? Btw I'm 49 yrs old and I'm using Charge HR. 

---

Hard to have a chart with any accuracy you could rely on.

First the genetic HRmax can be for a Honda or diesel heart, some just beat faster, some beat slower - nothing to do with fitness level at all - and either can have the same aerobic conditioning.

So the normal 220-age is a very rough almost useless figure once you've been doing cardio.

Also because if doing aerobic, the HRmax doesn't drop nearly that fast as you age, you can keep it higher.

My own tested is still 194, according to formula should be 174, and in 10 days, 173.

Also depends on how long or short your run is and purpose.

If it's merely to burn as many calories as possible in limited time, and still be able to recover to do it again tomorrow, then as high as you can almost get it is fine.

If it's to train your fat burning aerobic system for doing longer runs and endurance races, then high with mainly carb burning is bad training for that - hence the Maffetone method above.

So no one could really answer you, and no chart would be legitimate to you personally.

If you've ever done a workout and near the start before the legs were too tired to push the HR higher, you reached say 195, then a normally used 180 is 92% of HRmax - and that is rather high and not really good training, even for purely calorie burn and staying injury free. Unless this is first week and still getting fit.

In which case - slow down anyway.

If you've seen 210, then 180 is 86%, not as bad though still race pace and not really great for keeping injury free during normal training, unless that training is brief, like 20 min.

You'd also want to confirm the HR is really that high. Could be false readings.

That would be a manually felt HR of 30 beats in 10 sec. Might check it next time to see if really that high.