When is your heart rate too high on a treadmill?

[Anonymous]

I'm doing a weekly 3-mile run on a treadmill at my office and note that my heart rate can get high. I am running what most would consider an extremely slow pace--around 13:00-13:30 average! Might push it to 12:45 but that's the max. I pull back and walk for a minute or two once its hits 180-190. (I think I start out around 115-120.) When it hits 180, I walk and let it drop down to the 160s and then I start running again. Let me say that I have done similar training for a 10K annually, and this seems to be a pattern for me on the treadmill. (I'm also running longer outdoors on the weekends but not monitoring my heartrate so not sure what is happening outside the gym environment.) Also, the caveat that the treadmill may not be totally accurate but certainly seems to show a pattern. I'm in reasonably OK physical condition. Walk at least two-three miles per day and do Peloton routines. Definitely overweight (5'5 and 165), so that may have something to do with it. I am just not sure what I should do to improve this.

[Anonymous]

For a healthy adult, your target heart rate is 220 - your age. That’s the number most people should be aiming for during cardio work.

[Anonymous]

I should have mentioned: I'm 54. So my target would be around 166.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For a healthy adult, your target heart rate is 220 - your age. That’s the number most people should be aiming for during cardio work.

No! This is absolutely wrong. 220-Age is a rough estimate of MAXIMUM heart rate, not target heart rate. Depending on what someone is trying to do, you would expect your target to be anywhere between 60 and 95% of maximum.

To OP's question, it's easier to use your breathing as a guide. Unless you're trying to do sprints, aim for a pace that has you breathing just a little bit hard and you can only say a few words at a time. Too hard would be barely able to talk, too way would be having a full conversation.

[Anonymous]

Max heart rate is not really a scientifically based thing.

THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation

[Anonymous]

I’m an older runner with compromised lungs (from many years ago, not Covid). My heart beat rises to compensate for lack of oxygen it’s getting from lung tissue. I keep an eye on my heart rate and slow down when it gets too high….no need to have a heart attack when you’re trying to be healthy by exercising.

[Anonymous]

I'd suggest trying to run by perceived exertion (feel), not by heart rate. If your treadmill run is supposed to be an easy, moderate run, you'd want to be able to carry on your end of a conversation during the run. If you're doing intervals, etc., it would be different. You should be able to find more info in a google search.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd suggest trying to run by perceived exertion (feel), not by heart rate. If your treadmill run is supposed to be an easy, moderate run, you'd want to be able to carry on your end of a conversation during the run. If you're doing intervals, etc., it would be different. You should be able to find more info in a google search.

Yes, this. And I also wouldn't worry about "improving it." You want to be able to run slightly further or faster with the same level of exertion. That's the main progress you want to be monitoring, though you can also track resting heart rate to get a sense of the change in your fitness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Max heart rate is not really a scientifically based thing.

THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation

It's a rough rule of thumb, and there are newer formulas that may be more accurate. However, max heart is definitely a thing, it's just a matter of how to accurately estimate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Max heart rate is not really a scientifically based thing.

THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation

It's a rough rule of thumb, and there are newer formulas that may be more accurate. However, max heart is definitely a thing, it's just a matter of how to accurately estimate it.

Too bad science does not back you up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Max heart rate is not really a scientifically based thing.

THE SURPRISING HISTORY OF THE "HRmax=220 -age" EQUATION. Robert A. Robergs, Roberto Landwehr. JEPonline. 2002;5(2):1-10. The estimation of maximal heart rate (HRmax) has been a feature of exercise physiology and related applied sciences since the late 1930's. The estimation of HRmax has been largely based on the formula; HRmax=220-age. This equation is often presented in textbooks without explanation or citation to original research. In addition, the formula and related concepts are included in most certification exams within sports medicine, exercise physiology, and fitness. Despite the acceptance of this formula, research spanning more than two decades reveals the large error inherent in the estimation of HRmax (Sxy=7-11 b/min). Ironically, inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations. Consequently, the formula HRmax=220 -age has no scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. A brief review of alternate HRmax prediction formula reveals that the majority of age -based univariate prediction equations also have large prediction errors (>10 b/min). Clearly, more research of HRmax needs to be done using a multivariate model, and equations may need to be developed that are population (fitness, health status, age, exercise mode) specific.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237258265_The_surprising_history_of_the_HRmax220-age_equation

It's a rough rule of thumb, and there are newer formulas that may be more accurate. However, max heart is definitely a thing, it's just a matter of how to accurately estimate it.

Too bad science does not back you up.

Too bad you don't understand science. The quote you provided doesn't state that maximum heart rate doesn't exist. It absolutely does exist. It only calls into question the rough rule of thumb of 220 - age. I didn't disagree with you on that.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think you need to stop when you get to MHR. If you want to i prove endurance you want to have a bunch of training at lower heart rates but you also probably want to do some interval training where you might hit MHR but either way I don’t think hitting your MHR is a sign to ease off inmediately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a healthy adult, your target heart rate is 220 - your age. That’s the number most people should be aiming for during cardio work.

No! This is absolutely wrong. 220-Age is a rough estimate of MAXIMUM heart rate, not target heart rate. Depending on what someone is trying to do, you would expect your target to be anywhere between 60 and 95% of maximum.

To OP's question, it's easier to use your breathing as a guide. Unless you're trying to do sprints, aim for a pace that has you breathing just a little bit hard and you can only say a few words at a time. Too hard would be barely able to talk, too way would be having a full conversation.

+1. 220-your age could easily kill someone. Most 35 year olds are not capable of maintaining a 185 for any length of time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a healthy adult, your target heart rate is 220 - your age. That’s the number most people should be aiming for during cardio work.

No! This is absolutely wrong. 220-Age is a rough estimate of MAXIMUM heart rate, not target heart rate. Depending on what someone is trying to do, you would expect your target to be anywhere between 60 and 95% of maximum.

To OP's question, it's easier to use your breathing as a guide. Unless you're trying to do sprints, aim for a pace that has you breathing just a little bit hard and you can only say a few words at a time. Too hard would be barely able to talk, too way would be having a full conversation.

+1. 220-your age could easily kill someone. Most 35 year olds are not capable of maintaining a 185 for any length of time

I’m 30 and I literally vomit if I get up to 185. It’s happened twice at the gym now (thankfully made it to the bathroom both times).

[Anonymous]

NP. My 12 year old told me that they were measuring resting heart rate and heart rate while exercising in gym class and his heart rate while exercising was a little over 200. I initially assumed that the monitor was just inaccurate. But if it's accurate, is that okay?