Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been here
before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of these
Polar watches that measure your heart rate (Father's day
present!). You tell the computer how old you are and then it
knows what your limits are. Doing my usual circuit of 12 km
through the woods, even a bit slower than usual, it turned
out that I was running at 103-105 % of my "maximum heart
rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I am afraid I am
already 52 years old. Should I take this serious? What do
you guys think about these machine telling you to quit
running and start jogging (I mean- it boils down to that).
Is it ethically acceptable to lie to my computer about my
age? Are there ways to estimate a more accurate "maximum
heart rate"? I mean I feel like
35.willem

Hark! I heard "willem drees" <yesterday@tomorrow.com> say in
news:cb3khg$flm$1@reader08.wxs.nl:

> Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> here before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of
> these Polar watches that measure your heart rate (Father's
> day present!). You tell the computer how old you are and
> then it knows what your limits are. Doing my usual circuit
> of 12 km through the woods, even a bit slower than usual,
> it turned out that I was running at 103-105 % of my
> "maximum heart rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I
> am afraid I am already 52 years old. Should I take this
> serious? What do you guys think about these machine
> telling you to quit running and start jogging (I mean- it
> boils down to that). Is it ethically acceptable to lie to
> my computer about my age? Are there ways to estimate a
> more accurate "maximum heart rate"? I mean I feel like 35.

Did you use some sort of formula to predict your maximal
heart rate? There's a 95% chance that your maximal heart
rate is within 20 beats per minute of the predicted
value. If your heart is beating faster than what you
thought was your mhr, then your MHR needs to be adjusted
to at least that number. If at the time you weren't going
at an all out pace, then your MHR is a good bit higher
than what you thought or what the formula gave you. It's
better to do a performance test to determine your actual
maximal heart rate.

Your maximal heart rate will decline with age. This does not
mean you can't be as fit as a 35-year-old.

Phil M.

--
"I gotta go. You're killin' me."

willem drees wrote:

>Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been here
>before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of these
>Polar watches that measure your heart rate (Father's day
>present!). You tell the computer how old you are and then
>it knows what your limits are. Doing my usual circuit of 12
>km through the woods, even a bit slower than usual, it
>turned out that I was running at 103-105 % of my "maximum
>heart rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I am afraid I
>am already 52 years old. Should I take this serious? What
>do you guys think about these machine telling you to quit
>running and start jogging (I mean- it boils down to that).
>Is it ethically acceptable to lie to my computer about my
>age? Are there ways to estimate a more accurate "maximum
>heart rate"? I mean I feel like
>35.
>
Willem - those formulae to calculate your maximium heart-
rate are only approximations.
e.g. 220-age or some variant. Your actual maximum heart-
rate could be siginficantly higher. There is 1
regular poster here who is over 40 and has a max
heartrate over 200.

To calculate your "actual" maximum heartrate, you could
warmup for a few kms, then run say 1km "flatout". Towards
the end of that 1 km you should be getting close to your max
heartrate. Once you have calculated your actual maximum h/r,
then you can work out the various zones. 60%, 70% etc.

Another consideration is your "resting heartrate". Best
taken after you wake up. You can then calculate your heart-
rate reserve which is Max heartrate - resting heartrate and
work out the various zones accordingly.

Good luck,

Anthony. (age 42, Max h/r=184, resting h/r=40)

You're a jogger. Consider yourself lucky that the computer
talks to you at all.

willem drees wrote:

> Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> here before (as wouldn't surprise me).
Yes, heart rate monitors (HRM) have been discussed here,
often and at length. You might want to read some historical
posts on the topic: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=HRM&b-
tnG=Search&meta=group%3Drec.running http://groups.google.co-
m/groups?q=Polar&btnG=Search&meta=group%3Drec.running

> So I got one of these Polar watches that measure your
> heart rate (Father's day present!). You tell the computer
> how old you are and then it knows what your limits are.
> Doing my usual circuit of 12 km through the woods, even a
> bit slower than usual, it turned out that I was running at
> 103-105 % of my "maximum heart rate", where 85 % would be
> my absolute. I am afraid I am already 52 years old.
The computer only uses the age to set default guesses for
some of the parameters, like max HR. I think you can
directly set the parameter values. Just read the
instructions that came with the HRM.

> Should I take this serious? What do you guys think about
> these machine telling you to quit running and start
> jogging (I mean- it boils down to that).
Not quite. You can run more or less quickly, to stay in a
chosen HR range. I use it as a pacer, because I'm not good
at pacing myself.

When my HR is a little too high, it beeps at me, and I just
slow down a little bit (maybe a minute-per-mile slower).
When HR is a little low, it beeps, and I speed up a little
bit. When the weather is cool and dry, it takes a faster
pace to stay in my HR range. When the weather is hot and
humid, it takes a slower pace. Here in Florida, the heat and
humidity can change significantly in less than an hour, so I
find it helpful.

> Is it ethically acceptable to lie to my computer
> about my age?
Absolutely. Women do it all the time. But it's not
necessary. The HRM isn't going to tell anyone.

> Are there ways to estimate a more accurate "maximum heart
> rate"? I mean I feel like
> 35.
You could always go to a cardiologist to get it measured.
Or, you can just warm up a few k, do a hard max-effort k, or
two, and read what the HRM measured for the "max" HR during
that workout.

Someone who is not already fit should use the cardiologist,
because it would be very inconvenient to have a heart attack
just to measure your max HR. The fibrulation probably would
give a wrong number, anyway.

Steve

The standard formulae used have standard errors or standard
deviations of 8-12 bpm's so I do not find this unusual.

I would figure out my HRmax using any one of several field
tests (check with a physician first--mandatory
disclaimer!!!). I think Polar has a screen where you can put
in that figure, if not back calculate and put in the age
that gives you that figure.

"willem drees" <yesterday@tomorrow.com> wrote in message
news:cb3khg$flm$1@reader08.wxs.nl...
> Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> here before (as
wouldn't
> surprise me). So I got one of these Polar watches that
> measure your heart rate (Father's day present!). You tell
> the computer how old you are and then it knows
what
> your limits are. Doing my usual circuit of 12 km through
> the woods, even a bit slower than usual, it turned out
> that I was running at 103-105 % of my "maximum heart
> rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I am afraid I am
> already 52 years old. Should I take this serious? What do
> you guys think about these machine telling you to quit
> running and start jogging (I mean- it boils down to that).
> Is it ethically acceptable to lie to my computer about my
> age? Are there ways to estimate a more accurate "maximum
> heart rate"? I mean I feel like
> 35.willem
>

Willem, Where do you live? The Polar model watch only works
at the north or south poles, hence the name. If you don't
live there, why would you buy that watch? Bill Rodgers

"willem drees" <yesterday@tomorrow.com> wrote in message
news:<cb3khg$flm$1@reader08.wxs.nl>...
> Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> here before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of
> these Polar watches that measure your heart rate (Father's
> day present!). You tell the computer how old you are and
> then it knows what your limits are. Doing my usual circuit
> of 12 km through the woods, even a bit slower than usual,
> it turned out that I was running at 103-105 % of my
> "maximum heart rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I
> am afraid I am already 52 years old. Should I take this
> serious? What do you guys think about these machine
> telling you to quit running and start jogging (I mean- it
> boils down to that). Is it ethically acceptable to lie to
> my computer about my age? Are there ways to estimate a
> more accurate "maximum heart rate"? I mean I feel like
> 35.willem

In article <cb3ugb$g79$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, frits manders
<long_ago@faraway.com> writes
>
>Thanks Phil, I forgot to mention that the computer was pre-
>programmed to use the well-known formula '220-<age>' So
>what I understand you are saying, if I can reach a certain
>HR, that is by definition my maximum heart rate, and we
>shouldn't be dogmatic about it.. So I will see what I can
>do and go for an all-out run. Hope it doesn't kill me.

So you can use the formula the other way around and say
"If I have known MHR of 200 then I have the fitness of a
20-year-old"?
--
Mel Rimmer

The HRM's I've used let you program a target zone, and if
your HR goes above or below that zone, it will beep (I
always turn the beep off and just visually inspect it once
in a while). While exercising at a % of MaxHR is one way, I
prefer a system based on using lactate threshold heart rate
(LTHR) as a basis for setting training percentages rather
than MaxHR. This allows you to fine turn your training even
more, but may be overkill for the average runner. The main
reason for using LTHR as a basis is that your ability to
aerobically fuel and to clear lactic acid from the muscles
is what determines the amount of training your system can
handle. You train mostly at a level far enough below your
LTHR to avoid doing alot of muscle damage during training,
and then you train specifically to slowly push up your LTHR
to its maximum for peak condition.

You might find this helpful.
http://www.runningtimes.com/issues/0.../heartrate.htm

Look here for some LTHR based zones, similar to what I use
(though the LTHR estimator is lacking):
http://www.spencycles.com/start.html

- Tony

willem drees wrote in message ...
>Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been here
>before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of these
>Polar watches that measure your heart rate (Father's day
>present!). You tell the computer how old you are and then
>it knows what your limits are. Doing my usual circuit of 12
>km through the woods, even a bit slower than usual, it
>turned out that I was running at 103-105 % of my "maximum
>heart rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I am afraid I
>am already 52 years old. Should I take this serious? What
>do you guys think about these machine telling you to quit
>running and start jogging (I mean- it boils down to that).
>Is it ethically acceptable to lie to my computer about my
>age? Are there ways to estimate a more accurate "maximum
>heart rate"? I mean I feel like
>35.willem
>

my data for example maxHR=200 restHR=40 70%=165 78%=training

willem drees wrote:
>
> Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> here before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of
> these Polar watches that measure your heart rate (Father's
> day present!). You tell the computer how old you are and
> then it knows what your limits are. Doing my usual circuit
> of 12 km through the woods, even a bit slower than usual,
> it turned out that I was running at 103-105 % of my
> "maximum heart rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I
> am afraid I am already 52 years old. Should I take this
> serious? What do you guys think about these machine
> telling you to quit running and start jogging (I mean- it
> boils down to that). Is it ethically acceptable to lie to
> my computer about my age? Are there ways to estimate a
> more accurate "maximum heart rate"? I mean I feel like
> 35.willem

"Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net> schreef in bericht
news:Xns950E47F065028seilogramp@216.77.188.18...
> Hark! I heard "willem drees" <yesterday@tomorrow.com> say
> in news:cb3khg$flm$1@reader08.wxs.nl:
>
> > Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> > here before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of
> > these Polar watches that measure your heart rate
> > (Father's day present!). You tell the computer how old
> > you are and then it knows what your limits are. Doing my
> > usual circuit of 12 km through the woods, even a bit
> > slower than usual, it turned out that I was running at
> > 103-105 % of my "maximum heart rate", where 85 % would
> > be my absolute. I am afraid I am already 52 years old.
> > Should I take this serious? What do you guys think about
> > these machine telling you to quit running and start
> > jogging (I mean- it boils down to that). Is it ethically
> > acceptable to lie to my computer about my age? Are there
> > ways to estimate a more accurate "maximum heart rate"? I
> > mean I feel like 35.
>
> Did you use some sort of formula to predict your maximal
> heart rate? There's a 95% chance that your maximal heart
> rate is within 20 beats per minute of the predicted
> value. If your heart is beating faster than what you
> thought was your mhr, then your MHR needs to be adjusted
> to at least that number. If at the time you weren't going
> at an all out pace, then your MHR is a good bit higher
> than what you thought or what the formula gave you. It's
> better to do a performance test to determine your actual
> maximal heart rate.
>
> Your maximal heart rate will decline with age. This does
> not mean you can't be as fit as a 35-year-old.
>
> Phil M.
>
> --
> "I gotta go. You're killin' me."

Thanks Phil, I forgot to mention that the computer was
pre-programmed to use the well-known formula '220-<age>'
So what I understand you are saying, if I can reach a
certain HR, that is by definition my maximum heart rate,
and we shouldn't be dogmatic about it.. So I will see
what I can do and go for an all-out run. Hope it doesn't
kill me. Best, Wim

"Anthony" <anthony@nospm.mail.biu.ac.il> schreef in bericht
news:40D57216.8040100@nospm.mail.biu.ac.il...
> willem drees wrote:
>
> >Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> >here before (as
wouldn't
> >surprise me). So I got one of these Polar watches that
> >measure your heart rate
(Father's
> >day present!). You tell the computer how old you are and
> >then it knows
what
> >your limits are. Doing my usual circuit of 12 km through
> >the woods, even
a
> >bit slower than usual, it turned out that I was running
> >at 103-105 % of
my
> >"maximum heart rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I
> >am afraid I am already 52 years old. Should I take this
> >serious? What do you guys think about these machine
> >telling you to quit running and start jogging (I mean- it
> >boils down to that). Is it ethically acceptable to lie to
> >my computer about my age? Are there ways to estimate a
> >more accurate "maximum heart rate"? I mean I feel like
> >35.
> >
> Willem - those formulae to calculate your maximium heart-
> rate are only approximations.
> e.g. 220-age or some variant. Your actual maximum heart-
> rate could be siginficantly higher. There is 1
> regular poster here who is over 40 and has a max
> heartrate over 200.
>
> To calculate your "actual" maximum heartrate, you could
> warmup for a few kms, then run say 1km "flatout". Towards
> the end of that 1 km you should be getting close to your
> max heartrate. Once you have calculated your actual
> maximum h/r, then you can work out the various zones. 60%,
> 70% etc.
>
> Another consideration is your "resting heartrate". Best
> taken after you wake up. You can then calculate your heart-
> rate reserve which is Max heartrate - resting heartrate
> and work out the various zones accordingly.
>
> Good luck,
>
> Anthony. (age 42, Max h/r=184, resting h/r=40)
>

Thanks Anthony, You confirm what Phil M wrote a minute
earlier and you answer in fact my question to me how to
determine my real MHR.1 km flatout seems short even after a
warming up, since my heart seems to need some time to reach
is highest level. But of course it should't turn into some
sort of crash test. You are right that the computer uses
the '220-<age>' formula. I am interested about what you are
saying about resting heart rate and heart-rate reserve. I
mentioned it myself because one feels intuitively it must
be important, but apparently the computer (Polar a3) seems
just interested in the maximum. Or does it measure the
initial rate and considers that to be the resting rate?
thanks again,

Wim

Thanks everybody for these most helpful anwers. Sorry for
the confusion because of using a different news account
(Frits Manders) for my previous reactions leading to a
different name in the "from" field (well nobody probably
cared, and both names are partially fake anyway). wim

"Tony" <qtrader2@(remove)hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:CmkBc.13900$MW4.5660@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
> The HRM's I've used let you program a target zone, and if
> your HR goes
above
> or below that zone, it will beep (I always turn the beep
> off and just visually inspect it once in a while). While
> exercising at a % of MaxHR is one way, I prefer a system
> based on using lactate threshold heart rate (LTHR) as a
> basis for setting training percentages rather than MaxHR.
This
> allows you to fine turn your training even more, but may
> be overkill for
the
> average runner. The main reason for using LTHR as a basis
> is that your ability to aerobically fuel and to clear
> lactic acid from the muscles is what determines the amount
> of training your system can handle. You train mostly at a
> level far enough below your LTHR to avoid doing alot of
> muscle damage during training, and then you train
> specifically to slowly push up your LTHR to its maximum
> for peak condition.
>
> You might find this helpful.
> http://www.runningtimes.com/issues/0.../heartrate.htm
>
> Look here for some LTHR based zones, similar to what I use
> (though the
LTHR
> estimator is lacking):
> http://www.spencycles.com/start.html
>
> - Tony
>
> willem drees wrote in message ...
> >Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
> >here before (as
wouldn't
> >surprise me). So I got one of these Polar watches that
> >measure your heart rate
(Father's
> >day present!). You tell the computer how old you are and
> >then it knows
what
> >your limits are. Doing my usual circuit of 12 km through
> >the woods, even
a
> >bit slower than usual, it turned out that I was running
> >at 103-105 % of
my
> >"maximum heart rate", where 85 % would be my absolute. I
> >am afraid I am already 52 years old. Should I take this
> >serious? What do you guys think about these machine
> >telling you to quit running and start jogging (I mean- it
> >boils down to that). Is it ethically acceptable to lie to
> >my computer about my age? Are there ways to estimate a
> >more accurate "maximum heart rate"? I mean I feel like
> >35.willem
> >
> >
> >
>

Hark! I heard "frits manders" <long_ago@faraway.com> say in
news:cb3ugb$g79$1@reader08.wxs.nl:

>
> "Phil M." <pmarg@charter.net> schreef in bericht
> news:Xns950E47F065028seilogramp@216.77.188.18...
>> Hark! I heard "willem drees" <yesterday@tomorrow.com> say
>> in news:cb3khg$flm$1@reader08.wxs.nl:
>>
>> > Hi, I am new here so sorry if this discussion has been
>> > here before (as wouldn't surprise me). So I got one of
>> > these Polar watches that measure your heart rate
>> > (Father's day present!). You tell the computer how old
>> > you are and then it knows what your limits are. Doing
>> > my usual circuit of 12 km through the woods, even a bit
>> > slower than usual, it turned out that I was running at
>> > 103-105 % of my "maximum heart rate", where 85 % would
>> > be my absolute. I am afraid I am already 52 years old.
>> > Should I take this serious? What do you guys think
>> > about these machine telling you to quit running and
>> > start jogging (I mean- it boils down to that). Is it
>> > ethically acceptable to lie to my computer about my
>> > age? Are there ways to estimate a more accurate
>> > "maximum heart rate"? I mean I feel like 35.
>>
>> Did you use some sort of formula to predict your maximal
>> heart rate? There's a 95% chance that your maximal heart
>> rate is within 20 beats per minute of the predicted
>> value. If your heart is beating faster than what you
>> thought was your mhr, then your MHR needs to be adjusted
>> to at least that number. If at the time you weren't going
>> at an all out pace, then your MHR is a good bit higher
>> than what you thought or what the formula gave you. It's
>> better to do a performance test to determine your actual
>> maximal heart rate.
>>
>> Your maximal heart rate will decline with age. This does
>> not mean you can't be as fit as a 35-year-old.
>>
>> Phil M.
>>
>> --
>> "I gotta go. You're killin' me."
>
> Thanks Phil, I forgot to mention that the computer was pre-
> programmed to use the well-known formula '220-<age>' So
> what I understand you are saying, if I can reach a certain
> HR, that is by definition my maximum heart rate, and we
> shouldn't be dogmatic about it.. So I will see what I can
> do and go for an all-out run. Hope it doesn't kill me.

I have a Polar S610i. In the manual there is no mention of
conducting your own performance test. I assume this is for
legal reasons.

Here's a quote from the manual:

"The HRmax-p definition is carried out simultaneously with
the Polar Fitness Test. The HRmax-p score predicts your
individual maximum heart rate value more accurately than the
age-based formula (220-age). The age- based method provides
a rough estimation and may not be very accurate, especially
for people who have been fit for many years or for older
people. The most accurate way of determining your individual
maximum heart rate is to have it clinically measured (in
maximal treadmill or bicycle stress test) by a cardiologist
or an exercise physiologist."

The best performance-based maximal heart rate test that I
have found is this - Warm up thoroughly. Run three high-
intensity 600-meter repeats up a moderate hill, jogging back
down right away after each one. If you run these 600s all
out, your heart rate should be within two to three beats of
maximum by the end of the third repeat. I've tried a few
different performance tests, but this one gets me the
highest maximal heart rate. I don't think being chased by a
pack of rabid rottweilers would cause my heart to beat any
faster. ;-)

Phil M.

--
"I gotta go. You're killin' me."

Hark! I heard Mel Rimmer <mel.rimmer@timelord.org.uk> say in
news:jszcJBAuac1AJwNO@dsl.pipex.com:

> In article <cb3ugb$g79$1@reader08.wxs.nl>, frits manders
> <long_ago@faraway.com> writes
>>
>>Thanks Phil, I forgot to mention that the computer was pre-
>>programmed to use the well-known formula '220-<age>' So
>>what I understand you are saying, if I can reach a certain
>>HR, that is by definition my maximum heart rate, and we
>>shouldn't be dogmatic about it.. So I will see what I can
>>do and go for an all-out run. Hope it doesn't kill me.
>
> So you can use the formula the other way around and say
> "If I have known MHR of 200 then I have the fitness of a
> 20-year-old"?

Which 20-year-old? The ones I know were raised on video
games and Pop Tarts. ;-)

Phil M.

--
"I gotta go. You're killin' me."