Is my heart rate too high?

[griswold]

I'm 56, 6'2 and 213lbs (down from 250 in June). I started getting in shape earlier this year, mainly jogging and cycling.

My max heart rate (220-56) should be 164. My watch tells me my average resting heart rate is 60bpm.

When jogging, my heart rate, if my watch is to be trusted, ranges from about 125 to 155 or so.

Here's my latest run

I'm still pretty slow, my fastest lap so far is 1km in 7m 40s, but it's usually around 9m 30s. I've been running about 3.5km in about 30 minutes.

Is it dangerous in any way for my heart rate to be up in the mid 150s for an extended period of time?

 

[outofthedesert]

@griswold Good work on getting in shape!

Generally speaking, athletes routinely have very high heart rates. During a race I expect top athletes probably sustain around 90% of the max HR or more for an hour or two, for intance during a marathon or half-marathon. Of course, these are people in peak physical condition.

Now if you are one of those rare people with an undiscovered heart issue, then exercise could be dangerous because it is a stress on your system. Just remember your body grows stonger by adapting and recovering from that stress and it makes your body more robust in the long term. If you are concerned, get yourself a health check. That being said, you have already started fairly vigorous exercise, and you are still here.

Remember that the higher bpm you run at, the more cortisol/stress hormones are released. Which is fine, but it limits how often you can do it, because you need more recovery. If you manage to figure out your lacate threshold heartrate and stay below that value(80-85% of max), you will have signficantly less of a stress response. Running just below the lactate threshold seems to push the lactate threshold upwards, making you a faster runner.

That being said, doing use the "220" formula for max hr, it is likely misleading as people vary by quite a lot. You could try a max hr test, but honestly what you really need is to figure out your lactate threshold which you can estimate using different protocols, such as a 20minute test.

What I personally enjoy are "fartleks" based ont he "Easy Interval Method" which has you doing bouts of threshold pace, interspersed by longer jogging active recoveries. These kinds of sessions do not produce a lot of stress on your system, and you can do them every day even.

 

[aramazd]

@griswold First off, what is your goal? Is it to lose weight or to increase your HDL cholesterol levels? That said, working your heart rate in the range of 77-93% of you maximum is considered vigorous-intense physical activity.

155 BPM puts you at 94%. I’d say that’s too much and risky but you should run that by your family physician. You have left yourself no margin for error. What if your watch is of by 3%?

Don’t worry about your speed. Just keep making progress.

 

[griswold]

@aramazd Thanks for the response. My goal is to lose weight first, then keep it off forever so I live longer. My cholesterol levels are fine, based off my last doctors visit about a year ago.

I'll be seeing my doc early in the new year, so I'll ask him that. In the meantime, I'm going to try to go slower to keep my HR in the 130s

 

[aramazd]

@griswold 130 is high for fat burning. It puts you puts you onto anaerobic activity. You burn more fat with aerobic activity at 70%. That’s 115.

This if you go by the charts. It will vary by individual. I started running again at 50. I wasn’t trying to lose weight but did some reading in the subject. It’s hard for me to accept the charts because my body didn’t perform much different with each passing year.

So take these numbers with a grain of salt imo. You’re on the right track. Good luck to you.

 

[janeevans89]

@aramazd I read this all over and I believe there is a misconception here. I think what the data on this says is that exercising BEYOND 70% of your max heart rate does not net you any MORE fat loss than just going at 70%. Your body can only convert fat into usable energy so fast, and that rate seems to line up with approximately 70% of you max HR. Going beyond 70% will increase your calorie burn rate but you've already maxed out you bodies ability to use fat so the fat burning rate can't increase. However, it's not like once you are beyond 70% max HR your body stops converting fat into energy, it still uses that mechanism to its fullest. The extra calories required to maintain a higher HR has to come from other sources. It's easy to simplify this down to "you burn the most fat at 70% max HR" but it equally true for any activity level above 70% max HR. You'll still be burning maximum fat.

 

[aramazd]

@janeevans89 The OP was hitting a dangerous HR and wants to lose weight. I didn’t say you don’t burn fat above 70%.

Working at an anaerobic HR can lead to lactic acid build up. It’s harder to loose weight if you feel you efforts make you more tired and sore after your workout from lactic acid build up and muscles fatigue. You can avoid this discomfort by training at 70%. Sure, you can increase your lactic threshold as runners do. Simply put, energy doesn’t just come from burning fat and there’s a correlation to HR. You can read about it here.

https://runnersconnect.net/energy-systems-running/

 

[janeevans89]

@aramazd Yep, I completely agree. I'm just not satisfied with the common wording I see about the relationship of heart rate to fat burning. It is very common to see the argument worded in a way that implies going 90% max HR does not burn fat, which obviously it will.

As for OP's heart rate, I don't know enough about it to say anything. I used to be an amateur competitive cyclist and one of the guys I rode with had a heart rate way beyond the rest of the group. I was in my early 40's at the time and the highest I ever saw my heart rate was 180, and it was for a fleeting moment. Typically I could not get about 176-178, and the highest I could maintain for an hour was about 151 (if I could get myself to suffer for that long). He had no trouble getting his heart rate into the 220's and he was a few years older than me. His heart rate was always higher than mine (and really higher than our entire group of 10-12 riders). At rest his heart rate wasn't anything special but get on a long uphill climb and his heart rate was just MUCH higher than the average. He still bikes, he's been in good shape his whole life, and has no health concerns. He's just an outlier as far as heart rate goes. It was just a lesson for me that max heart rate can be well outside the "220 minus your age" formula.

 

[aramazd]

@janeevans89 I think the common wording is to keep people safe. There are outliers. I’m one of them.

 

[dawn16]

@griswold Just congratulations on your success so far and keep it up!

 

[bfg33]

@griswold My heart rate can now run at 90+ percent of that 220-age predictor (146-151, vs. 156) exercising fairly hard. I don’t feel like I’m pushing myself too hard while I am doing it.

 

[atlantadad]

@griswold To my knowledge to date, no real doctors actually post on Reddit. If you are super-concerned, check with an irl MD, but if you run like that and can hold a convo, breathe normally after a few minutes of rest, feel fine, endorphins kicking in, and you want to improve, keep on doing what you’re doing. It’s sounds like you are kicking ass!

 

[seek2bboldwitness]

@griswold If you google, "exercise heart rate chart by age and gender" you will find the answers you seek. Many gyms post these charts on the wall in front of the treadmills.

 

[tim10001]

@griswold Short answer is, and as my doctor has said, that it doesn't matter how high you go as long as your heart quickly settles down after the effort.

I'm 52, and will routinely get up to 186 odd bpm while cycling at max effort with no I'll effects. The std calculation is just a guide, the true measure is what you can actually do

 

[tim10001]

@griswold Short answer is, and as my doctor has said, that it doesn't matter how high you go as long as your heart quickly settles down after the effort.

I'm 52, and will routinely get up to 186 odd bpm while cycling at max effort with no I'll effects. The std calculation is just a guide, the true measure is what you can actually do

 

[griswold]

@tim10001 Thank you