HR and workouts

[Ronstar]

I use a polar chest strap heart rate monitor. Heart rate is my key metric with my goal for each workout to reach 150 bpm. I am 65 so the rule of thumb would put this at about 97% of max, but I think my max bpm must be higher than that. Average over a 30-45 minute session would be in the 135-140 range. I sweat profusely and lose about 2 lbs of water each workout. Been doing this for about 35 years.

My view is that physical activity is paramount in retirement. The benefits are so obvious and documented it would be irresponsible not to do it in some form. I do it mostly for myself but also for my loved ones, eg I want to be around for a long time and be able to enjoy life as long as possible. For me this is just as important as the financial aspects of retirement. We like to criticize spend thrifts on this site. We should also be criticizing couch potatoes.

I agree that physical activity is paramount in retirement, but IMO we shouldn't criticize couch potatoes (or any behavior as long as it's moral and legal).


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Danmar]

I agree that physical activity is paramount in retirement, but IMO we shouldn't criticize couch potatoes (or any behavior as long as it's moral and legal).


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

OK. Probably good to not criticize. But we sure criticize other "bad financial behaviour" here. Why not bad health behaviour?

 

[UtahSkier]

>> Does the heart have a fixed amount of beats in a lifetime? If yes then does increasing your heart rate decrease your life?

Ahhh, the Buzz Aldrin theory of heart health. Seems to be working for him (currently 85), but I don't subscribe to this theory at all. The heart is just a muscle.

>> What is the purpose of consistently keeping your rate up?

To exercise the entire cardio vascular system so you don't die like Nelson Rockerfeller...

"had succumbed to a heart attack at the age of 70, while in his midtown townhouse with his 25-year-old assistant, Megan Marshack. Preferred joke: How did Nelson Rockefeller die? Low blood pressure: 70 over 25."

>> If it is to burn calories why not simply eat the right amount?

Because I like fine, rich foods, ice cream and the occasional wine binge!

 

[Miranda]

I'm going to REI today for a garmin watch with HR capabilities. Probably the 235. After some research, it looks like there may be some inconsistencies in HR monitoring from watches with wrist sensors. Some reviewers say that the watches monitor HR ok, some say that they are inaccurate - mostly in activities where there are quick and significant changes in heart rate. If I find that the watch isn't monitoring accurately on its own, I'll get a chest strap.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

FWIW the wrist HR monitor on my fitbit seems to give me the same HR reading as my Garmin220 w/chest strap.

Please read and immediately dismiss the following:

Does the heart have a fixed amount of beats in a lifetime? If yes then does increasing your heart rate decrease your life?

What is the purpose of consistently keeping your rate up? If it is to burn calories why not simply eat the right amount?

To gain strength you need to train muscles which doesn't need hours upon hours of increased heart rate.

Hmm, more study needed on this by me...

I agree that weight management starts with what you put in your mouth and you that you can't out train a bad diet. With that said, I am a petite female over 50 with the metabolism of a sloth. I don't even burn that many calories when I run (~80 a mile). I pretty much have to run if I don't want to eat like a bird, as my mom says.

Improving my cardiovascular fitness improves my quality of life in too many ways to list.

I personally believe people have to figure out what works for them and do what they enjoy. That is the only way they will realistically incorporate the activity(ies) into their life consistently.

 

[audreyh1]

Please read and immediately dismiss the following:

Does the heart have a fixed amount of beats in a lifetime? If yes then does increasing your heart rate decrease your life?

What is the purpose of consistently keeping your rate up? If it is to burn calories why not simply eat the right amount?

To gain strength you need to train muscles which doesn't need hours upon hours of increased heart rate.

Hmm, more study needed on this by me...

Your heart rate may beat faster for the 20 mins to hour of aerobic exercise, but it more than compensates by lowering your resting heart rate. So total beats per day go down.

Exercising at a higher heart rate increases fitness - health of heart, lungs, veins, muscles, etc.. Reducing calories does nothing for that, and in fact often causes muscle loss if not exercising regularly.

 

[audreyh1]

I use my Apple Watch for all outdoor activities (walking, cycling), and put on a chest strap when doing aerobics or rowing indoors - that's mainly to see a graph or readout during the exercise.

 

[RetireAge50]

A couple years ago I was doing a lot of cardio via running, jogging, etc. I was doing the whole keep your heart rate up thing. It eliminated fat pretty quickly but I think it also reduced muscles. My wife said my legs were too skinny.

I also did the weight machines quickly which was also basically another cardio exercise as I wasn't really gaining much strength this way.

I recently was referred (in this forum) to the website stronglifts.com It is about getting stronger and healthy using free weights (and eating properly). Balancing the weight uses multiple muscles together making you stronger.

I definitely need to continue learning but I am starting to question all the techniques health experts and trainers are pushing on people.

 

[athena53]

>> If it is to burn calories why not simply eat the right amount?



Because I like fine, rich foods, ice cream and the occasional wine binge!

Yep. I burn over 5,000 calories a week. I live in dread of being sidelined by illness or injury because of all the lovely food I couldn't enjoy!

 

[audreyh1]

A couple years ago I was doing a lot of cardio via running, jogging, etc. I was doing the whole keep your heart rate up thing. It eliminated fat pretty quickly but I think it also reduced muscles. My wife said my legs were too skinny.

I also did the weight machines quickly which was also basically another cardio exercise as I wasn't really gaining much strength this way.

I recently was referred (in this forum) to the website stronglifts.com It is about getting stronger and healthy using free weights (and eating properly). Balancing the weight uses multiple muscles together making you stronger.

I definitely need to continue learning but I am starting to question all the techniques health experts and trainers are pushing on people.

Loosing weight and muscle from upper body from a lot of running is not unusual as your body is try to optimize for the activity, and upper body strength is not as important for running. Nor are large leg muscles. You can have skinny legs and run fast.

So programs like running for weight loss need to be supplemented with strength training, if your goal is to maintain muscle mass.

 

[supernova72]

I'm mostly a runner for cardio and when I strap on the HR and use Garmin my average is about 155bpm. It is amazing to see it shoots up for hills (maybe 170 ish pretty quickly).


I don't do "real" heart rate training but some of my bike friends swear by it.


When I'm feeling it my 3M pace is 7:35, 4M 7:40, 5M 7:45-7:50 (the 5M pace is getting hard to maintain I'm finding).
55 yrs old, M. 155 lbs, 6'0" on a good day. Lol.

 

[audreyh1]

It depends on the exercise.

If I'm rowing, it's easy for me to get get close to HR max, and I sometimes do it (breach 170bpm). I'm often rowing 150-165.

If I'm doing aerobics, it will be pretty moderate and partly high aerobic zones 125-160. Same with cycling.

Walking it's mostly low to moderate aerobic zone. 115-125

I like doing a variety of expertise weekly, and a variety of aerobic zones as well.

I'm trying to maintain fitness and weight. I don't feel the need to exercise all out all the time. I just try to get some every day, and more/more intense on some days a week.

56, and I'm just not interest in pushing it hard anymore. All my vitals are great - good cholesterol numbers, quite low blood pressure, healthy weight, good stamina, flexibility, and reasonable fitness as I can walk several miles and row/cycle hard without getting that winded. (Except that it's all at almost sea level). Just trying to maintain.

P.S. If I've exercised hard the day before, I find it hard to get my heart rate up the next day during exercise. I wonder if it's some kind of fatigue. Always kind of wondered about this. Hard ride one day, and the next even when walking hard can't get my HR past 110.

 

[Danmar]

Yep. I burn over 5,000 calories a week. I live in dread of being sidelined by illness or injury because of all the lovely food I couldn't enjoy!

Very impressive. I also love to eat and drink. Constant battle to burn more calories than I absorb. Lots of fun though.

 

[Danmar]

P.S. If I've exercised hard the day before, I find it hard to get my heart rate up the next day during exercise. I wonder if it's some kind of fatigue. Always kind of wondered about this. Hard ride one day, and the next even when walking hard can't get my HR past 110.

Interesting. Some days you have it and others you don't. My best workouts are when my HR gets high fast and stays there. Never goes above 155 but some days I can't get it above low 130's. I especially have problems getting my heart rate up if I did a weight training session before. Makes sense I guess, just too tired. Takes a very long very steep hill when biking to get my heart rate over about 130.

Also, elevation makes a huge difference. In Canmore we are at 5000ft and everywhere else around 1000ft. Much harder in Canmore. Often do personal bests after returning from a few weeks in the mountains.

 

[audreyh1]

Interesting. Some days you have it and others you don't. My best workouts are when my HR gets high fast and stays there. Never goes above 155 but some days I can't get it above low 130's. I especially have problems getting my heart rate up if I did a weight training session before. Makes sense I guess, just too tired. Takes a very long very steep hill when biking to get my heart rate over about 130.

Also, elevation makes a huge difference. In Canmore we are at 5000ft and everywhere else around 1000ft. Much harder in Canmore. Often do personal bests after returning from a few weeks in the mountains.

Yeah, I think some type of fatigue is involved.

My aerobics is actually with hand weights - combo weights/aerobics, so it can get intense with large body moves. And sometimes the next day I just can't get my heart rate up.

 

[LOL!]

I can correlate better runs (faster with lower HR) with what I ate: chips w/salt and salsa do wonders for my performance.

 

[twolfy]

Ronstar
I think you will find the wrist HR monitor to be pretty accurate. Most problem with them seem to be difficulty in activities that demand more twisting of the wrist like with weight lifting. I had a fit bit and used it for running and compared it to a chest strap and was always within a beat. The only issue I did have was while running if I sweated a great deal on my arms and wrist that sometimes I would get no HR reading at all until i wiped the sensor with my shirt. Actually was easy to do without breaking stride. A good looking and accurate activity tracker/gps watch with the added benefit of music, dont need to carry phone or other music player is the tomtom spark cadio+ music. Read very good reviews on it. Great site for reviews is: rizknows.com
A guy in San Diego tests all this stuff .


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[twolfy]

"I can correlate better runs (faster with lower HR) with what I ate: chips w/salt and salsa do wonders for my performance"

Now you're talking. This is my favorite snack. Never did try it right before a run. I feel an experiment coming on!


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[audreyh1]

The salsa (capsaicin) releases endorphins, just like running does. So you already have the high before you start the run......

 

[twolfy]

Never need any motivation for me to have salsa and chips but I like your train of thought!


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[imoldernu]

The term Heart Rate threw me a little, as "Pulse" was the term I've always tuned in to. After reading more about HR and measurement, it appears that there are some differentiations having to do with how, when, and what conditions are present during the measurement.
Nothing earth shattering, but this Heart Association article does go into some detail about taking and interpreting readings.


All About Heart Rate (Pulse)

 

[Ronstar]

Well I got the Garmin 235 with HR monitor. I took it out on a 4 mile run at 9:20 pace. I'm trying to stay above 9 minutes a mile for a while to avoid more hip soreness. My HR was a low of 65 and a high of 161. I was shocked that it got that high. If 220-age(60) = a max heart rate of 160, then I'm at my max. Doesn't make sense because I can carry on a conversation at 160 HR, and I normally run around a minute per mile faster. That would indicate an even higher HR at my normal pace. It was cool though- the watch was giving me HR warnings when I reached the low 150's.(I entered my birth year, height and weight, so I guess it figures out the max HR.

Glad that I'm finally looking at HR and thanks to all of you who posted very helpful info.


Sent from my iPhone .using Early Retirement .//82339)

 

[braumeister]

This calculated max HR thing (220 minus age or some equivalent) has been bothering me for many years (yes, I have many pet peeves). It may be good enough to apply to the general population but is completely useless (IMHO) for me or most people I know. Your own max is specific to you.

A good example is when I was a really active runner around age 40, my calculated max HR would have been 180. But when I did a max effort for the last ¼ mile of a long run, my actual HR (using a chest strap) was always over 190.

Similarly, when I was 64, my calculated max would have been 156, but I frequently finished my run going up a long steep hill and hit 175 routinely.

I would encourage anyone who wants to use HR as a training tool to find out your real maximum heart rate. It's not hard to do.

Just get a good HR monitor (I always used either a Polar or Garmin with a chest strap) and do the most vigorous workout you can stand for at least fifteen minutes, then finish by giving it all you've got, pushing yourself to the utter exhaustion point where you simply have to stop because you've given it all you have. Your top measured HR is your own true maximum.

Once you have that, it's easy to calculate percentage bands from it to customize your training.

Please note that I am not telling anyone to do this. This would be a very serious decision that you probably want to check with your doctor about before you attempt it. Particularly true in the case of anyone who doesn't already do this kind of exercise routinely.

 

[LOL!]

Or just get cardiac stress test in your cardiologist's lab.

 

[braumeister]

Or just get cardiac stress test in your cardiologist's lab.

Much as I hate to harp on the subject, I would actually disagree with that recommendation.
Most cardiac stress tests are programmed to stop when you reach your "calculated" max HR out of an abundance of caution. So they may not give you your actual max.

 

[LOL!]

^I do agree with that, so discuss with your physician.

There is really no reason why your HRmax should be exactly 220 - age. It could be near it or luckily on it or not. That's like saying every person's height is 180 cm minus the height of their shoe heels.