High Heart rate all the time!

fraserforbes

I have been cycling for around 8 months after around 10 years of no exercise at all.

My resting heart rate is 60. I have built up to a range for around 50miles (13.5mph avg) I notice my HR avg is always around 176 on any slow pace rides.

Is this normal or just a sign am unfit?

Example - http://app.strava.com/activities/54871875

Thanks

mattbass789

Everyone's heart rates are different, on and off the bike.
As you get fitter your heart rate will come down for the same level of perceived effort.

However, it's a case to start worrying when your heart rate never returns to resting, and stays elevated for an unusual amount of time after you stop and finish you ride.

I remember when I started upping my riding many years ago, using a basic polar HR monitor, and tracking it with a spreadsheet, my Averages were very high, compared to now. to get the same average now I have to work very hard.

hatch87

Wouldn't worry, after 2 years my heart rate is still in the 180's. Anything below 160 feels like I'm not doing anything. You should only worry if its abnormal to you rather than anyone else. We just have little hampster hearts :-D

Inutero

On a side note, nice little run you have there. Cycled to Crieff a few times this year from Perth. If you continue up the Gilmerton road instead of turning off, you end up at the Sma'Glen. Beautiful place.

imposter2.0

fraserforbes wrote:

I have been cycling for around 8 months after around 10 years of no exercise at all.

My resting heart rate is 60. I have built up to a range for around 50miles (13.5mph avg) I notice my HR avg is always around 176 on any slow pace rides.

Is this normal or just a sign am unfit?

Example - http://app.strava.com/activities/54871875

Thanks

Presumably you know your max HR - otherwise how are you gauging that your HR is 'high' ??

fraserforbes

Am using a garmin edge 510. My max heart rate avg is 196.

IanTrcp

Have you had a go at finding your maximum heart rate?? You hit 201 on that ride, was that the limit or was there more to come?

Assuming you were trying pretty hard but not to the point of having to stop, 201 might be (say) 95% indicating a max of 212. Your avg for the ride of 179 is 84% of this, which is entirely reasonable for a 4 hour ride.

My max was 197 when last tested. I frequently average around 163 (83%) on similar rides to yours. I think the maxim of "It doesn't get any easier, you just go faster..." applies. What I have noticed as I've become more experienced is that my ability to ride at lower HR's but still do a reasonable pace has improved massively. When I started riding I used to wonder what people were on when they talked about doing long climbs in the alps at 70-something%, as my HR was through that before I was out of the car park. With time that's changed to the extent that I enjoyed climbing the Tourmalet with an avg of 152 (77%) last September. Comfortably below my threshold.

If my experience is a guide then I wouldn't worry about what you're seeing. As you get fitter and your body adapts to cycling you'll find you are able to ride similar distances at lower HR's. It's just that you won't - you'll go faster instead! Enjoy...

imposter2.0

fraserforbes wrote:

Am using a garmin edge 510. My max heart rate avg is 196.

ok - I don't know what you mean by 'max HR average' - your max HR should be a single figure. But if your average over a 50 mile ride is 176, and your max is 196 then that would suggest that you rode pretty much the entire distance at 90% of max HR, which is more or less threshold pace - and threshold pace would almost certainly not be sustainable for that duration, especially in someone who has only been riding for 8 months.

Two possibilities here - either your max of 196 is inaccurate, or the 176 average is inaccurate. How have you established that your max is 196?

volociroldster

i recall that for general fitness you should work at around 60 per cent of your max heart rate for at least 1 x 40 minute session per week, this is regarded as fairly standard advice for a good and safe work out in any form of exercise. To calculate max heart rate use 220 minus your age. For me (aged 44) my max heart rate would be 176 bpm. 60 per cent of this being around 108 bpm (haven't got calculator on me). With my resting heart rate being 56 bpm, 2 to 3 hrs at 108 bpm is a ruddy good session with occasional peaking on climbs causing me to go anaerobic before leveling out on descents and on the flat. To consistently exercise at very high bpm without knowing other factors such as your blood pressure, V02 max or cholestoral level could bring about longer term harm - i would advise seeking some advice from a fitness assessor or your GP if you haven't done so already. High bpm may be indicative of the cardio vascular system struggling to get O2 to the vital organs and major muscle groups and therefore pumping excessively fast in order to do so, if you think about it a fit cyclist should be striving to have a high watt output with the lowest possible heart rate. Thereby maximising energy output whilst minimising the stress on the vital organs and muscle tissue. Bpm is a very raw primary indicator when it comes to gauging fitness and the benefits being gained form exercise.

IanTrcp

volociroldster wrote:

i recall that for general fitness you should work at around 60 per cent of your max heart rate for at least 1 x 40 minute session per week, this is regarded as fairly standard advice for a good and safe work out in any form of exercise. To calculate max heart rate use 220 minus your age. For me (aged 44) my max heart rate would be 176 bpm. 60 per cent of this being around 108 bpm (haven't got calculator on me). With my resting heart rate being 56 bpm, 2 to 3 hrs at 108 bpm is a ruddy good session with occasional peaking on climbs causing me to go anaerobic before leveling out on descents and on the flat. To consistently exercise at very high bpm without knowing other factors such as your blood pressure, V02 max or cholestoral level could bring about longer term harm - i would advise seeking some advice from a fitness assessor or your GP if you haven't done so already. High bpm may be indicative of the cardio vascular system struggling to get O2 to the vital organs and major muscle groups and therefore pumping excessively fast in order to do so, if you think about it a fit cyclist should be striving to have a high watt output with the lowest possible heart rate. Thereby maximising energy output whilst minimising the stress on the vital organs and muscle tissue. Bpm is a very raw primary indicator when it comes to gauging fitness and the benefits being gained form exercise.

OP - you can safely disregard this post. Sorry volociroldster.

imposter2.0

volociroldster wrote:

To calculate max heart rate use 220 minus your age.

As above - seriously, don't bother with this. The 220-age formula is more likely to give you a completely inaccurate figure than an accurate one. The only accurate way of establishing your MHR is through hard efforts on real roads.

volociroldster

It's an indicative formula widely used in the fitness sector...

volociroldster

Hope this is useful.

http://concept2.co.uk/training/answers?id=3

Validates the use of 220 - age as an indicative measure only.

imposter2.0

volociroldster wrote:

It's an indicative formula widely used in the fitness sector...

That doesn't make it any less useless, unfortunately...

imposter2.0

volociroldster wrote:

Hope this is useful.

http://concept2.co.uk/training/answers?id=3

Validates the use of 220 - age as an indicative measure only.

Actually, it doesn't 'validate' it at all. Not sure how you have come to that conclusion. What's the point of a measure that might indicate that your MHR is actually around 15bpm lower (in my case) than it actually is?

volociroldster

Hey folks, this is a recognised indicative measure - i haven't made it up. If you search 'calculate maximum heart rate' it is all over the place and has been for 20 plus years. It is not though person specific and if that is the basis of the slating then i am in agreement. However, to focus on this one piece of info does an injustice to the rest of the entirely sensible advice i gave in my initial response to the question. Not looking to fall out over this but the OP is clearly seeking views of which mine is but one...

imposter2.0

volociroldster wrote:

Hey folks, this is a recognised indicative measure - i haven't made it up. If you search 'calculate maximum heart rate' it is all over the place and has been for 20 plus years. It is not though person specific and if that is the basis of the slating then i am in agreement. However, to focus on this one piece of info does an injustice to the rest of the entirely sensible advice i gave in my initial response to the question. Not looking to fall out over this but the OP is clearly seeking views of which mine is but one...

If you have any interest in training with HR, then it follows that you would want to do it properly - otherwise, the numbers on your monitor will be effectively meaningless.

The fact that something has been around for '20 years' is not evidence of its accuracy. 220-age has been almost entirely discredited as an accurate predictor of MHR. Taking my own example, if I used 220-age to calculate my training zones, then I would probably be training up to two zones lower than I should be in some sessions.

Training by HR has to be 'person-specific' to be effective - so why use an inaccurate, 'non person-specific' measure to calculate your MHR?

volociroldster

Doesn't the last line on my original post kind of support this. i think the sensible advice would be for the OP to get some person specific testing and advice if they are at all concerned. Signing off...

fraserforbes

Thats correct Ian, My maximum heart rate was 201. In fact this has been the most ever and I had to get off and walk. Its that a true max and I feel I could not do anymore?

Also if that is my max HR what would the zones be?

Max is 201, resting is 66 and am 35years old. . .

elderone

fraserforbes wrote:

Thats correct Ian, My maximum heart rate was 201. In fact this has been the most ever and I had to get off and walk. Its that a true max and I feel I could not do anymore?

Also if that is my max HR what would the zones be?

Max is 201, resting is 66 and am 35years old. . .

/Zone 1 (60-65% of maximum heart rate): For long, easy rides, to improve the combustion and storage of fats.
Zone 2 (65-75% of MHR): The basic base training zone. Longish rides of medium stress.
Zone 3 (75-82% of MHR): For development of aerobic capacity and endurance with moderate volume at very controlled intensity.
Zone 4 (82-89% of MHR): For simulating pace when tapering for a race.
Zone 5 (89-94% of MHR): For raising anaerobic threshold. Good sessions for 10- and 25-mile time-trials.
Here you go.

eternalstudent

Imposter wrote:

fraserforbes wrote:

Am using a garmin edge 510. My max heart rate avg is 196.

ok - I don't know what you mean by 'max HR average' - your max HR should be a single figure. But if your average over a 50 mile ride is 176, and your max is 196 then that would suggest that you rode pretty much the entire distance at 90% of max HR, which is more or less threshold pace - and threshold pace would almost certainly not be sustainable for that duration, especially in someone who has only been riding for 8 months.

Two possibilities here - either your max of 196 is inaccurate, or the 176 average is inaccurate. How have you established that your max is 196?

People are all different, I did a half marathon and my hart rate sate at >190 for 9 miles. max over this time was 222.
I have followed this through with various assessments. The last being a V02 max test. During this I was able to hold my heart rate (monitored by ECG) at 200 with out an issue.

The first reply about the speed the HR returns to normal is the most important. If it does not, then there are issues.

From my experience I would say you have a relatively small lung capacity. Over time this will improve, and your heart rate will reduce for the same exercise level. However, as you push yourself you will end up hitting high HR's.

Only advice is don't compete with your friends over HR's. This can result is some pale a faint feeling pals in the gym LOL.

fraserforbes

So something like this? worked out with the max at 201

zone 1 (60-65% of maximum heart rate) 120 -130
zone 2 (65-75% of MHR): 130 - 150
zone 3 (75-82% of MHR): 150 - 164.82
zone 4 (82-89% of MHR): 164.82 - 178.89
zone 5 (89-94% of MHR): 178.89 - 188.94


Thank you the help just cant get my head around it!

IanTrcp

My maxHR has been the same (197) each of the three times I've had it tested. Interestingly it doesn't seem to be decreasing with age as the first test was at age 41 and the last at nearly 46. I've never managed to get within 5 beats of that when riding on the road - believe me I'v tried hanging on the wheel of stronger friends!

So I would be tempted to conclude that your true max (were you to complete to exhaustion a properly constructed protocol in a sports lab test) may be a little higher - say 205. On that basis you can calculate your zones as you have above.

For me, there are really only a couple of meaningful "areas" to be aware of:

- I can ride all day with my HR<75%
- 75% to 83% I can sustain for long periods (say a Sportive or mountainous ride)
- Anything more than 85% won't last very long (eg I slow down if I see this on a long climb) and will be paid for later...
- I can go up to 96% and remain "in control" of my breathing and effort for short stretches e.g. the odd 20%+ ramp you get here and there

Kingsmill1

I am 44 and use a HRM recently the device recorded a new max heart rate of 198 ( I was doing a bit of climbing quite quickly so not surprised). On a hour ride my average heart rate is about 160 bpm and not much more on the longest ride I've done which was 2hrs odd. My resting rate is between 55-60 and blood pressure is normal for my age at about 125/70. Looking at the training zones it would appear Im working to hard but to be honest not out of breath when I finish my ride and only really breathing hard when ive got to the top of a climb which I think is normal. According to the science my MHR should be 186 and therefore Im working far to hard, but to bring my HR down I would be going a lot slower and not really feel Im benefiting from the ride.

wongataa

Kingsmill1 wrote:

I am 44 and use a HRM recently the device recorded a new max heart rate of 198

Kingsmill1 wrote:

According to the science my MHR should be 186 and therefore Im working far to hard

If you got to 198 the "science" saying your max heart rate is 186 is clearly wrong as you got it higher. Your max heart rate is the absolute maximum rate it can beat at and can only be found out by measurement. It will be higher than 200 most likely as you didn't say you collapsed in a heap when it reached 198.

Kingsmill1

wongataa . didnt collapse in a heap thankfully I have had my heart tested at St Thomas Hosp having a stress echo done where my Max Hrt was around 190 before i told the doctor to stop with the meds they were given me. Strangest experience ever lying down and still but being totally out of breath dont recommend it. Once i had reached 198 on my HRM it was only brief and I was able to continue the ride, the HRM is a Sunnto M4