Max heart rate when exercising
funiny...@excite.com
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?
George
Paul Rogers
news:3BDCDC35...@excite.com...
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.
PR
Bruce
"Paul Rogers" <ecol...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
From www.drmirkin.com
MAXIMUM HEART RATE FORMULA IS WRONG
Gabe Mirkin, M.D.
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.
Ted Eisenstein
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.)
Alban
Paul Rogers
news:3bdf9120...@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
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.
Paul R
Howard H. Wayne, M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A.C.P.
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.
nu...@damn.business.com (Bruce) wrote in message news:<3bdf9120...@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net>...
checkit...@carolina.rr.com
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?
Thanks
Dale