Concept2 Forum

I am 62 year old overweight female. I have been rowing and working out for close to a year. I do not consider myself fit even though I am much, much improved over a year ago. I thought I understood how heart rate and age related....the rule of 120 minus your age to set your supposed max heart rate but there is something I don't understand. I exercise on a recumbant bike at the gym with a girl who is not overweight and 35 and has been working out for years. When she is going 14-15 mph, her heart rate is 160-170. When I am biking right along with her on identical bikes at 18-19 mph, my heart rate is in the low 90s. No difference in the bikes. It is the same result for each of us no matter which bike we are on.<br /><br />I know my maximum would be much lower than hers but if we were the same level of fitness, would our heart rates be closer in number? Does this mean my heart is more efficient? I would like to understand this a bit better. She claims her resting heart rate is close to 100 and mine is in low 50s when lying down and 60s when just walking around. The fitness test on the bike says I am at the highest level of fitness which I don't think is really true.<br /><br />Maybe doing almost 2 million meters in the past year has really changed my fitness level. I would like to think so. <br /><br />Ellen

<!--QuoteBegin-edollar+Jan 3 2006, 11:04 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(edollar @ Jan 3 2006, 11:04 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am 62 year old overweight female. I have been rowing and working out for close to a year. I do not consider myself fit even though I am much, much improved over a year ago. I thought I understood how heart rate and age related....the rule of 120 minus your age to set your supposed max heart rate but there is something I don't understand. I exercise on a recumbant bike at the gym with a girl who is not overweight and 35 and has been working out for years. When she is going 14-15 mph, her heart rate is 160-170. When I am biking right along with her on identical bikes at 18-19 mph, my heart rate is in the low 90s. No difference in the bikes. It is the same result for each of us no matter which bike we are on.<br /><br />I know my maximum would be much lower than hers but if we were the same level of fitness, would our heart rates be closer in number? Does this mean my heart is more efficient? I would like to understand this a bit better. She claims her resting heart rate is close to 100 and mine is in low 50s when lying down and 60s when just walking around. The fitness test on the bike says I am at the highest level of fitness which I don't think is really true.<br /><br />Maybe doing almost 2 million meters in the past year has really changed my fitness level. I would like to think so.  <br /><br />Ellen <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am a 66 year old male, erger and runner. Right now about 15 pounds overweight In my opinion you are not working hard enough. <b>The rule by the way is 220 minus your age!!</b> This means that for best aerobic training effect your HR should be between 110-126 and HR max is 158. On the erg after 20 minutes my heart rate is around 143. When in running about the same and my max HR is around 170. Inside of 2 min after exercise (and this is a key sign of fitness) my heart rate drops by 30 BPM. My resting HR is 55 measured during a 24 hour EKG.

Ooops!! I did screw up on the 220 minus your age formula.... Also I don't think I made myself clear. I mostly use the bike mostly for warm up or cool down or a bit of crosstraining when I erg at the gym. I do workout much harder than that..... Many times I have gotten to 100% max (160 and above) on the erg. I was just trying to get a comparison between heart rate difference doing the same thing at different ages. If the 35 year old girl would have same heart rate as I did at the same rate of speed....would we be the same fitness level? If my heart rate is much lower on the same load does that make me more fit or her less fit? Just a curiosity question...<br /><br />Ellen

<!--QuoteBegin-edollar+Jan 3 2006, 11:32 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(edollar @ Jan 3 2006, 11:32 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ooops!! I did screw up on the 220 minus your age formula.... Also I don't think I made myself clear. I mostly use the bike mostly for warm up or cool down or a bit of crosstraining when I erg at the gym. I do workout much harder than that..... Many times I have gotten to 100% max (160 and above) on the erg. I was just trying to get a comparison between heart rate difference doing the same thing at different ages. If the 35 year old girl would have same heart rate as I did at the same rate of speed....would we be the same fitness level? If my heart rate is much lower on the same load does that make me more fit or her less fit? Just a curiosity question...<br /><br />Ellen <br /> </td></tr></table><br />If your heart rate is lower at the same load then you are fitter. If her resting heart rate is 100 she is in really poor shape, or has a serious thyroid problem... The heart is a muscle and exrcise makes it stronger. This means that it pumps more volume of blood per beat. If your body has all the oxygen it needs then it pumps slower. Also because it is stronger it doesn't tire as quickly and recovers faster from a given effort. Check your recovery rate after exercise, I think you will have a nice surprise Now change your diet and watch those pounds roll off.

ED<br />Your values look just right for someone who's been working out for a year or so. The bike test bears this out, all depending on what "highest level" is tho'. <br />Once fit, the 205 - ½ age rule can also be used; a test is also easily done on the erg, so rules are not really needed if you have a machine, as you have seen.<br />Your 35 yo old friend however either has a small heart or a big problem - or a HR monitor that's kaputt. Said as an engineer, not a medic. I never saw anyone here cite a minimum higher than 60 (mine) and most are 40-50. The heart pumps blood and the faster it goes, the more it pumps; why does she need so much at rest??

Here is my data:<br /><br />63 yo female erging for 2 + years.<br /><br />max hr is 175<br />sitting is 60<br /><br />when I am out of shape my hr goes down.<br /><br />The 205-1/2 age is a new rule for me, and it is right on. The 220-age rule doesn't work for me now that I am in better shape.<br /><br />I tried my hr monitor on both my erg and on a cycle ride (flat). I wasn't working nearly as hard on the bicycle as I do on the erg.<br /><br />Just for fun do an erg hr test. Warm up well, then start erging for real. Bring your split time down every 500 meters until you can't maintain that level of intensity for more than 10 seconds, and see what your hr is.<br /><br />This is not recommended for folks with heart problems or other health issues which it could adversly affect.<br /><br />What fun! <br /><br />grams

Hi Ellen, <br />Here is some info. on resting heart rate that sort of fits here.<br /><br />Resting heart rate averages 60 to 80 beats per minute. In middle-aged, unconditioned, sedentary individuals the resting rate can exceed 100 beats per minute. In highly conditioned endurance-trained athletes, such as some of these hot shots around here, resting rates in the range of 28 to 40 beats per minute. Your resting heart rate typically de-creases with age. It is also affected by environmental factors; for example, it increases with extremes in temperature and altitude.<br /><br />There is also anticipatory heart rate (I think that is what it is called) when norepinephrine is released and heart rate climbs prior to the work out. So possibly the person next to you is (as people have mentioned) very much out of shape, or she may have checked her resting pulse prior to exercising. So, your resting heart rate is below average! Good Job!

<!--QuoteBegin-edollar+Jan 3 2006, 11:04 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(edollar @ Jan 3 2006, 11:04 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am 62 year old overweight female. I have been rowing and working out for close to a year. I do not consider myself fit even though I am much, much improved over a year ago. I thought I understood how heart rate and age related....the rule of 120 minus your age to set your supposed max heart rate but there is something I don't understand. I exercise on a recumbant bike at the gym with a girl who is not overweight and 35 and has been working out for years. When she is going 14-15 mph, her heart rate is 160-170. When I am biking right along with her on identical bikes at 18-19 mph, my heart rate is in the low 90s. No difference in the bikes. It is the same result for each of us no matter which bike we are on.<br /><br />I know my maximum would be much lower than hers but if we were the same level of fitness, would our heart rates be closer in number? Does this mean my heart is more efficient? I would like to understand this a bit better. She claims her resting heart rate is close to 100 and mine is in low 50s when lying down and 60s when just walking around. The fitness test on the bike says I am at the highest level of fitness which I don't think is really true.<br /><br />Maybe doing almost 2 million meters in the past year has really changed my fitness level. I would like to think so.  <br /><br />Ellen <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Ellen,<br /><br />I've read the posts above as well, so this responds to everything through Yukon John's post. The "220 - age" formula originated from a study of sedentary individuals done by Dr. Kenneth Cooper (the "Father of Aerobics") decades ago. He has stated that it was never intended to be prescriptive of anything -- it was simply descriptive of the individuals he studied. Yet, it has taken on a life of its own.<br /><br />The "205 - 1/2" age formula tends to be more accurate describing more fit individuals, but it is not intended to be prescriptive, either. There are significant variations between individuals of the same age. Moreover, raw MHR numbers say very little about overall fitness.<br /><br />The fact is that your maximum heart rate is <b>YOUR</b> maximum heart rate. A formula is at best an approximation. The only way to be sure what your MHR is would be to exert yourself maximally and see. (Be careful, though -- I leave it to your good judgment as to whether in your case you should consult your physician first.) Given that you know your resting heart rate, you may want to try the Karvonen method, which determines your heart rate reserve (maximum minus resting heart rate). You can then train by reference to a percentage of HRR instead of MHR.<br /><br />If you are interested, there are a number of books on the subject that are generally available. I like <i>Precision Heart Rate Training</i> by Edmund Burke, although the fact that he died of a heart attack while on a bicycle training ride might give some people pause. I'm not so keen on any of the Sally Edwards books, though. The Burke book describes several different ways to determine actual MHR.<br /><br />MHR's also vary between activities: your rowing MHR may be significantly below your cycling or running MHR, due to body position. (When you are vertical, your heart has to work harder to return blood from your legs.) The best measure of rowing MHR is the readout on the monitor on your C2.<br /><br />There are many possible explanations for the differences between you and your friend. Without knowing more, comparisons would be meaningless. You seem, despite your modesty, to be an extremely fit person. Congratulations. <br />

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are interested, there are a number of books on the subject that are generally available. I like Precision Heart Rate Training by Edmund Burke, although the fact that he died of a heart attack while on a bicycle training ride might give some people pause. I'm not so keen on any of the Sally Edwards books, though. The Burke book describes several different ways to determine actual MHR.<br /><br />MHR's also vary between activities: your rowing MHR may be significantly below your cycling or running MHR, due to body position. (When you are vertical, your heart has to work harder to return blood from your legs.) The best measure of rowing MHR is the readout on the monitor on your C2. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am interested in learning more about this. Thanks for the references. Whenever I have tried to read anything about it...it seems to either be so technical that I don't understand or just give out the same information that your max decreases by about 10% per decade...I think that is close to what I've read anyway. I realize that probably more younger people have a higher max heart rate but wondered if equally fit people of varying age doing the same load would have similar heart rate or if younger person would have a lower or higher heart rate if all other things were equal except age.... I do feel I would show more fit on the bike and rowing machine than I would on a treadmill or elliptical because not having to carry body in a vertical position. Hopefully someday that will be changed. I keep working on it and am definitely making progress.<br /><br />Maybe this is a silly question but since I have biked a lot with this same person and daily I'm amazed at the differences in our heart rates since she seems so fit and I have considered myself unfit (with cause). <br /><br />I do wonder about a lot of things my husband thinks aren't worth considering but I just have a curious mind about stuff. Thanks for the answers.....

<!--QuoteBegin-edollar+Jan 3 2006, 08:32 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(edollar @ Jan 3 2006, 08:32 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are interested, there are a number of books on the subject that are generally available. I like Precision Heart Rate Training by Edmund Burke, although the fact that he died of a heart attack while on a bicycle training ride might give some people pause. I'm not so keen on any of the Sally Edwards books, though. The Burke book describes several different ways to determine actual MHR.<br /><br />MHR's also vary between activities: your rowing MHR may be significantly below your cycling or running MHR, due to body position. (When you are vertical, your heart has to work harder to return blood from your legs.) The best measure of rowing MHR is the readout on the monitor on your C2. </td></tr></table><br /><br />I am interested in learning more about this. Thanks for the references. Whenever I have tried to read anything about it...it seems to either be so technical that I don't understand or just give out the same information that your max decreases by about 10% per decade...I think that is close to what I've read anyway. I realize that probably more younger people have a higher max heart rate but wondered if equally fit people of varying age doing the same load would have similar heart rate or if younger person would have a lower or higher heart rate if all other things were equal except age.... I do feel I would show more fit on the bike and rowing machine than I would on a treadmill or elliptical because not having to carry body in a vertical position. Hopefully someday that will be changed. I keep working on it and am definitely making progress.<br /><br />Maybe this is a silly question but since I have biked a lot with this same person and daily I'm amazed at the differences in our heart rates since she seems so fit and I have considered myself unfit (with cause). <br /><br />I do wonder about a lot of things my husband thinks aren't worth considering but I just have a curious mind about stuff. Thanks for the answers..... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I thank you for posting the questions about heart rates, because I wonder about it all the time. I wear a monitor when I row or spin or run (I am a 51 year old fairly fit woman) and my rate when I do the 2K is about 175-185. It is less when I spin or run, but that is because there isn't a monitor to keep me motivated . And, I have wondered if it is dangerous to be that high. (It does drop down pretty quickly when I stop the agony on the erg?) Will it be easier to maintain the 175+ as I workout more or improve? <br />Thanks.

May I recommend "Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot" by John L. Parker, Jr. ISBN 0-915297-25-6 from Cedarwinds Publishing. It also talks about using the HR Monitor for other sports besides running.

<!--QuoteBegin-BobD+Jan 4 2006, 03:17 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(BobD @ Jan 4 2006, 03:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->May I recommend "Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot" by John L. Parker, Jr.  ISBN 0-915297-25-6 from Cedarwinds Publishing.  It also talks about using the HR Monitor for other sports besides running.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I also have that book. It is also fairly good. I prefer Burke over Parker, but either book would be satisfactory. Burke is a bit more technical than Parker. I think that his MHR testing protocol descriptions are better. If the opportunity to browse both books is available, then you ought to look both over before deciding which you like better.<br /><br />Unfortunately, neither book addresses rowing in any way. They are oriented to the running, cycling, swimming, triathlon, and roller-blading communities.

<!--QuoteBegin-Porkchop+Jan 4 2006, 09:54 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Jan 4 2006, 09:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-BobD+Jan 4 2006, 03:17 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(BobD @ Jan 4 2006, 03:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->May I recommend "Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot" by John L. Parker, Jr.  ISBN 0-915297-25-6 from Cedarwinds Publishing.  It also talks about using the HR Monitor for other sports besides running.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I also have that book. It is also fairly good. I prefer Burke over Parker, but either book would be satisfactory. Burke is a bit more technical than Parker. I think that his MHR testing protocol descriptions are better. If the opportunity to browse both books is available, then you ought to look both over before deciding which you like better.<br /><br />Unfortunately, neither book addresses rowing in any way. They are oriented to the running, cycling, swimming, triathlon, and roller-blading communities. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />But your ticker only knows it's being exercised within a certain range and duration, doesn't matter too much what sport I should think. 150 BPM is 150 BPM no matter how it is achieved if for the same duration.

Thanks for the book recommendations. I will probably buy both books since I am a book addict. I really like the "Idiot" and "Dummy" books. Sometimes you just have to start at the beginning because other books assume you already know some basics that maybe you don't, and usually the "Idiot" books use layman's language or explain scientific terms better.<br /><br />I seem to be fascinated with numbers of all kinds so understanding this does interest me quite a bit...especially when rowing, biking or using the treadmill at our small gym since there are no TVs to distract one from thinking about such things. <br /><br /><br />Ellen

<!--QuoteBegin-BobD+Jan 4 2006, 10:45 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(BobD @ Jan 4 2006, 10:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Porkchop+Jan 4 2006, 09:54 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Porkchop @ Jan 4 2006, 09:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-BobD+Jan 4 2006, 03:17 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(BobD @ Jan 4 2006, 03:17 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->May I recommend "Heart Monitor Training for the Compleat Idiot" by John L. Parker, Jr.  ISBN 0-915297-25-6 from Cedarwinds Publishing.  It also talks about using the HR Monitor for other sports besides running.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />I also have that book. It is also fairly good. I prefer Burke over Parker, but either book would be satisfactory. Burke is a bit more technical than Parker. I think that his MHR testing protocol descriptions are better. If the opportunity to browse both books is available, then you ought to look both over before deciding which you like better.<br /><br />Unfortunately, neither book addresses rowing in any way. They are oriented to the running, cycling, swimming, triathlon, and roller-blading communities. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />But your ticker only knows it's being exercised within a certain range and duration, doesn't matter too much what sport I should think. 150 BPM is 150 BPM no matter how it is achieved if for the same duration. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes, but both books set out sport-specific training suggestions that are not particularly easy to adapt to rowing. All of the programs tend to be endurance-oriented. Given that most rowers are focused on the 2K distance as the primary "event," endurance-sport training protocols are of limited utility.<br /><br />Personally, I use heart-rate based interval training, which none of the HR training books address. But I don't row for the sake of rowing. My C2 just happens to be the instrument of choice for the cardio/endurance/energy-systems-development segment of a broader exercise program.<br /><br />Actually, some would argue that 150 BPM on a bicycle is significantly different than 150 BPM on an erg. As I noted above, the heart doesn't have to work as hard to return blood through the system when the body is horizontal (as on an erg) as it does when the body is vertical (as on a bicycle) -- the heart does not have to fight gravity (as much) to get its job done. It can deliver an equal volume of blood with fewer beats, so the maximum heart rate tends to be lower on the erg. <br /><br />This certainly is my experience -- I seldom come close to my cycling MHR of 193 on an erg. I get as high as 182-84 occasionally on the C2. That's roughly a 5% difference, which I think is probably significant. I have read similar observations with regard to swimmers' MHR's (i.e., that an individual's swimming MHR will be lower than his/her running MHR), although I have no personal observations to compare. <br /><br />By the way, I am 54, so I guess that I am a poster-child for the statement that formulae are at best an approximation of MHR. My predicted MHR would be 168 (220-54) to 175 (205-27), but my actual MHR is 16 to 25 BPM higher, depending on the activity.