I'm a 53 year old male, normal height and weight. I run 3 miles 3X per week at the gym (on a treadmill) and my HR measures 150 to 155. Using the 220-age formula that comes close to my max heart rate. The standard cardio fitness recommendation is to run at around 80% of max HR. Am I pushing too hard?
> I'm a 53 year old male, normal height and weight. I run 3 miles > 3X per week at the gym (on a treadmill) and my HR measures 150 to > 155. Using the 220-age formula that comes close to my max heart > rate. The standard cardio fitness recommendation is to run at > around 80% of max HR. Am I pushing too hard?
See your doc. Have a stress (exercise) echocardiogram at some time. If your heart et al looks okay and you feel okay during and after then this should not be a problem. I run my heart rate up to 160 regularly at similar age.
"Paul Rogers" <ecold...@bigpond.net.au> wrote: ><funinyourl...@excite.com> wrote in message >news:3BDCDC35.446F911C@excite.com... >> I'm a 53 year old male, normal height and weight. I run 3 miles >> 3X per week at the gym (on a treadmill) and my HR measures 150 to >> 155. Using the 220-age formula that comes close to my max heart >> rate. The standard cardio fitness recommendation is to run at >> around 80% of max HR. Am I pushing too hard?
>See your doc. Have a stress (exercise) echocardiogram at some time. If your >heart et al looks okay and you feel okay during and after then this should >not be a problem. I run my heart rate up to 160 regularly at similar age.
Many of the standard tests used to measure heart function are based on a nonsensical MAXIMUM HEART RATE formula, that predicts the fastest your heart can beat and still pump blood through your body. Although this formula is the golden standard used today, it is not based on science. In 1970, a good friend, Sam Fox, was the director of the United States Pubic Health Service Program to Prevent heart disease. He is one of the most respected heart specialists in the world. He and a young researcher named William Haskell were flying to a meeting. They put together several studies comparing maximum heart rate and age. Sam Fox took out a pencil and plotted a graph of age verses maximum heart rate and said it looks like maximum heart rate is equal to 220 minus a person's age. For the last 30 years, this formula has been taught in physical education and heart function course and has been used to test heart function and athletic fitness. In the 1960s, Sam Fox was very helpful to me when I was competing, planning and setting up running programs, but the whole concept of maximum heart rate and the formula that it is equal to 220 minus your age is ridiculous.
The formula is wrong because your legs drive your heart. Your heart does not drive your legs. Maximum heart rate depends on the strength of your legs, not the strength of your heart. When you contact your leg muscles, they squeeze against the blood vessels near them to pump blood from your leg veins toward your heart. When your leg muscle relax, your leg veins fill with blood. So your leg muscles pump increased amounts of blood toward your heart. This increased blood fills the heart and causes your heart to be faster and with more force. This is called the Bainbridge reflex that doctors are taught in their first year of medical school. The stronger your legs are, the more blood they can pump, which causes your heart to beat faster. Since I race at my maximum speed most weekends on my bicycle, my legs are very strong and can pump blood forcibly to my heart. The formula, 220 minus age, claims that I can get my heart rate only up to 220 minus 66 or 154. I am 66 years old and I can easily get my heart rate above 210 beats a minute because I am in shape. An out-of-shape 20 year may have maximum heart rate of only 120.
A pencil mark plotted on a graph during an airplane flight more than 30 years ago has been the accepted formula for maximum heart rate for more than 30 years and the medical community has accepted false dogma, based on no research, for more than 30 years.
On a slightly different but closely allied thread: I'm on a beta-blocker, which, among other things, slows down my heart rate - even during exercise. So, how the heck do I know I'm exercising enough, and doing wonderful things to my heart, if my heart rate is artificially kept on the slow side of things? (Recently, resting rate is in the low 60's, and the highest I've gotten during exercise is 102.)
> In sci.med.cardiology > "Paul Rogers" <ecold...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> ><funinyourl...@excite.com> wrote in message > >news:3BDCDC35.446F911C@excite.com... > >> I'm a 53 year old male, normal height and weight. I run 3 miles > >> 3X per week at the gym (on a treadmill) and my HR measures 150 to > >> 155. Using the 220-age formula that comes close to my max heart > >> rate. The standard cardio fitness recommendation is to run at > >> around 80% of max HR. Am I pushing too hard?
> >See your doc. Have a stress (exercise) echocardiogram at some time. If your > >heart et al looks okay and you feel okay during and after then this should > >not be a problem. I run my heart rate up to 160 regularly at similar age.
> Many of the standard tests used to measure heart function are based on a > nonsensical MAXIMUM HEART RATE formula, that predicts the fastest your > heart can beat and still pump blood through your body. Although this > formula is the golden standard used today, it is not based on science. In > 1970, a good friend, Sam Fox, was the director of the United States Pubic > Health Service Program to Prevent heart disease. He is one of the most > respected heart specialists in the world. He and a young researcher named > William Haskell were flying to a meeting. They put together several studies > comparing maximum heart rate and age. Sam Fox took out a pencil and plotted > a graph of age verses maximum heart rate and said it looks like maximum > heart rate is equal to 220 minus a person's age. For the last 30 years, > this formula has been taught in physical education and heart function > course and has been used to test heart function and athletic fitness. In > the 1960s, Sam Fox was very helpful to me when I was competing, planning > and setting up running programs, but the whole concept of maximum heart > rate and the formula that it is equal to 220 minus your age is ridiculous.
> The formula is wrong because your legs drive your heart. Your heart does > not drive your legs. Maximum heart rate depends on the strength of your > legs, not the strength of your heart. When you contact your leg muscles, > they squeeze against the blood vessels near them to pump blood from your > leg veins toward your heart. When your leg muscle relax, your leg veins > fill with blood. So your leg muscles pump increased amounts of blood toward > your heart. This increased blood fills the heart and causes your heart to > be faster and with more force. This is called the Bainbridge reflex that > doctors are taught in their first year of medical school. The stronger your > legs are, the more blood they can pump, which causes your heart to beat > faster. Since I race at my maximum speed most weekends on my bicycle, my > legs are very strong and can pump blood forcibly to my heart. The formula, > 220 minus age, claims that I can get my heart rate only up to 220 minus 66 > or 154. I am 66 years old and I can easily get my heart rate above 210 > beats a minute because I am in shape. An out-of-shape 20 year may have > maximum heart rate of only 120.
> A pencil mark plotted on a graph during an airplane flight more than 30 > years ago has been the accepted formula for maximum heart rate for more > than 30 years and the medical community has accepted false dogma, based on > no research, for more than 30 years.
I agree to some extent. Personally I don't take much notice of max heart rate calculations. As long as I have the confidence that the system is healthy, I just go for it, sometimes to exhaustion. I peak at around 180 on max stress tests, which is more than the formula would predict for a 53 year old. However, I would be very surprised if there were too many fit 66 year olds with max rates of 210 as Mirkin says. Not saying he's a fibber, but this is very unusual.
Max heart rates seem to be a product of many factors and not necessarily fitness as he implies. Probably something to do with stroke and volume of blood pumped.
Not only is the concept of maximal heart rate dogma have no basis in scientific fact, but the whole concept of an abnormal stress test automatically meaning obstructive coronary artery disease also needs to be reexamined. If I start to choke you, and when you start to turn blue take an electrocardiogram, and it is abnormal, that does not mean you have heart disease. That would be a normal response to a severe stress. When the heart rate is pushed on a stress test to 220 minus the patient’s age, and is accompanied by a large increase in blood pressure, as often is the case, both these responses can cause an ischemic response---even in patient’s without significant obstructive coronary artery disease. Such individuals should have their blood pressure and heart rate brought under control first and the stress test repeated. Unfortunately, most cardiologists are of a mind set to routinely refer anyone with an abnormal stress test for angioplasty or bypass surgery. That might be appropriate if a patient had an abnormal stress test in the first 3-6 minutes at a low heart rate and normal blood pressure, but in such a patient, one doesn’t need to have him undergo a stress test to determine there is significant ischemia. For more information see my Web site at http://www.heartprotect.com
Howard H. Wayne, M.D. F.A.C.C., F.A.C.P. , F.C.C.P.
> ><funinyourl...@excite.com> wrote in message > >news:3BDCDC35.446F911C@excite.com... > >> I'm a 53 year old male, normal height and weight. I run 3 miles > >> 3X per week at the gym (on a treadmill) and my HR measures 150 to > >> 155. Using the 220-age formula that comes close to my max heart > >> rate. The standard cardio fitness recommendation is to run at > >> around 80% of max HR. Am I pushing too hard?
> >See your doc. Have a stress (exercise) echocardiogram at some time. If your > >heart et al looks okay and you feel okay during and after then this should > >not be a problem. I run my heart rate up to 160 regularly at similar age.
> Many of the standard tests used to measure heart function are based on a > nonsensical MAXIMUM HEART RATE formula, that predicts the fastest your > heart can beat and still pump blood through your body. Although this > formula is the golden standard used today, it is not based on science. In > 1970, a good friend, Sam Fox, was the director of the United States Pubic > Health Service Program to Prevent heart disease. He is one of the most > respected heart specialists in the world. He and a young researcher named > William Haskell were flying to a meeting. They put together several studies > comparing maximum heart rate and age. Sam Fox took out a pencil and plotted > a graph of age verses maximum heart rate and said it looks like maximum > heart rate is equal to 220 minus a person's age. For the last 30 years, > this formula has been taught in physical education and heart function > course and has been used to test heart function and athletic fitness. In > the 1960s, Sam Fox was very helpful to me when I was competing, planning > and setting up running programs, but the whole concept of maximum heart > rate and the formula that it is equal to 220 minus your age is ridiculous.
> The formula is wrong because your legs drive your heart. Your heart does > not drive your legs. Maximum heart rate depends on the strength of your > legs, not the strength of your heart. When you contact your leg muscles, > they squeeze against the blood vessels near them to pump blood from your > leg veins toward your heart. When your leg muscle relax, your leg veins > fill with blood. So your leg muscles pump increased amounts of blood toward > your heart. This increased blood fills the heart and causes your heart to > be faster and with more force. This is called the Bainbridge reflex that > doctors are taught in their first year of medical school. The stronger your > legs are, the more blood they can pump, which causes your heart to beat > faster. Since I race at my maximum speed most weekends on my bicycle, my > legs are very strong and can pump blood forcibly to my heart. The formula, > 220 minus age, claims that I can get my heart rate only up to 220 minus 66 > or 154. I am 66 years old and I can easily get my heart rate above 210 > beats a minute because I am in shape. An out-of-shape 20 year may have > maximum heart rate of only 120.
> A pencil mark plotted on a graph during an airplane flight more than 30 > years ago has been the accepted formula for maximum heart rate for more > than 30 years and the medical community has accepted false dogma, based on > no research, for more than 30 years.
F.A.C.C., F.A.C.P.) wrote: >Not only is the concept of maximal heart rate dogma have no basis in >scientific fact, but the whole concept of an abnormal stress test >automatically meaning obstructive coronary artery disease also needs >to be reexamined. If I start to choke you, and when you start to turn >blue take an electrocardiogram, and it is abnormal, that does not mean >you have heart disease. That would be a normal response to a severe >stress. When the heart rate is pushed on a stress test to 220 minus >the patient’s age, and is accompanied by a large increase in >blood pressure, as often is the case, both these responses can cause >an ischemic response---even in patient’s without significant >obstructive coronary artery disease. Such individuals should have >their blood pressure and heart rate brought under control first and >the stress test repeated. Unfortunately, most cardiologists are of a >mind set to routinely refer anyone with an abnormal stress test for >angioplasty or bypass surgery. That might be appropriate if a patient >had an abnormal stress test in the first 3-6 minutes at a low heart >rate and normal blood pressure, but in such a patient, one >doesn’t need to have him undergo a stress test to determine >there is significant ischemia. For more information see my Web site >at http://www.heartprotect.com
>Howard H. Wayne, M.D. F.A.C.C., F.A.C.P. , F.C.C.P.
I agree that the 220- age formula is wrong, I'm a 46 year old male that runs about 25 mles per week. I can fairly easily see 180 going uphill if i am running for time.(fast) I can get even higher rates if sprinting. However I would like some explaination of this training method I'm currently running under. That is I'm running at <155 heart rate, the idea being that this slow running this will eventually increase the heart volume per stroke. Therefore, as it's explained to me eventually that same 155 bbp heart rate which now gives me about a 9 min. mile will some day result in a 8 min.or even less mile. My question is exactly how does this happen? Does the heart enlarge to supply more volume per stroke? And if so is this enlargement a good thing? As an aside I have seen formulas that determine exercize target heart rates from resting heart rates. Are these better or maybe I should say acceptable for determining training zones?
|
