dangerous heart rate?

Discussion in 'General Fitness' started by matstand, Feb 28, 2006.

  1. matstand

    matstand Guest

    i've just purchased a garmin 301 speed/distance heart monitor. I am
    thirty four so I guessed that my max heart rate should be about 186
    (220 minus my age). On my first trip out with the monitor, I ran 3 flat
    miles (my standard short run) at about my normal pace (7.5 mph). When I
    reviewed the data of the run it said that my max achieved heart rate
    for the run as 217 bpm. This strikes me as pretty high, as surely if
    I'd have exerted myself my max heart rate would have been even faster.
    Is a heart rate like this indicative of heart problems? Or is it a
    mistake by the machine or the way I am using it?

    In case it helps, I am 6 foot 1, for the last year or so I've run once
    a week and rowed for an hour twice each weekend, so I am reasonably
    fit. Should I worry about an abornally high heart rate? my resting rate
    is in the mid sixties which seems normal. I've always had a relatively
    small lung capacity, possibly due to TB as an infant, so I've always
    had to breath more heavily during exercise than friends.

    Any help to put my mind at ease would be greatly appreciated.
     
    Tags:


  2. On 2006-02-28, matstand <[email protected]> wrote:
    > i've just purchased a garmin 301 speed/distance heart monitor. I am
    > thirty four so I guessed that my max heart rate should be about 186
    > (220 minus my age). On my first trip out with the monitor, I ran 3 flat
    > miles (my standard short run) at about my normal pace (7.5 mph). When I
    > reviewed the data of the run it said that my max achieved heart rate
    > for the run as 217 bpm. This strikes me as pretty high, as surely if


    Don't worry about it. It's wrong to say that your max heart rate "should" be
    anything. There's a lot of variation among healthy people. 220-age is just an
    estimate and not a very good one for that matter.

    Cheers,
    --
    Donovan Rebbechi
    http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
     
  3. Splodge

    Splodge Guest

    "matstand" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > i've just purchased a garmin 301 speed/distance heart monitor. I am
    > thirty four so I guessed that my max heart rate should be about 186
    > (220 minus my age). On my first trip out with the monitor, I ran 3 flat
    > miles (my standard short run) at about my normal pace (7.5 mph). When I
    > reviewed the data of the run it said that my max achieved heart rate
    > for the run as 217 bpm. This strikes me as pretty high, as surely if
    > I'd have exerted myself my max heart rate would have been even faster.
    > Is a heart rate like this indicative of heart problems? Or is it a
    > mistake by the machine or the way I am using it?
    >
    > Any help to put my mind at ease would be greatly appreciated.
    >


    In my experience, erratic high readings are commonly caused by (amongst
    other things):

    - Dry clothing flapping into contact with the chest strap. Polar suggest
    slightly dampening clothing in the region of the chest sensor before you
    begin exercising to reduce the slight static electic effects producing
    "false heartbeats" in the sensor...... this works well for me. Once you get
    well and truly sweaty during the exercise, this tends to become less of a
    problem :)

    - Running underneath high voltage electricity lines, or radio
    transmitters/masts which can interfere with the signal between the sensor
    strap and the watch.

    Cheers
    Splodge
     
  4. rick++

    rick++ Guest

    zero

    but one wouldnt care about it then

    otherwise the biggest danger seems to be getting newbies
    worried about something unimportant
     
  5. Dan Stumpus

    Dan Stumpus Guest

    "Donovan Rebbechi" <[email protected]> wrote

    >>...When I
    >> reviewed the data of the run it said that my max achieved heart rate
    >> for the run as 217 bpm. This strikes me as pretty high, as surely if

    >
    > Don't worry about it. It's wrong to say that your max heart rate "should"
    > be
    > anything. There's a lot of variation among healthy people. 220-age is just
    > an
    > estimate and not a very good one for that matter.


    ....and if I might tag along here, there's a good chance that that 217 is an
    artifact. Heck, I've had max readings of 210+ on a run I was never running
    hard during, and I know my max is low 180's.

    If you have a particular kind of irregular heartbeat, you can get a reading
    like that, but it's equally likely that it's bogus. Watch your rate while
    running, it will generally rise gradually if you're running with any
    oomph -- it won't spike to 210. If you start out at 180, it might rise that
    high, but like most folks you're probably in the 130-150 range on an
    ordinary run.

    I'd be interested in what you get when you're watching it every 5-10 minutes
    during your run.

    -- Dan
     
  6. thehick

    thehick Guest

    "max achieved heart rate for the run as 217 bpm"

    The reading was probably wrong. You might try experimenting
    with wetting yourself and the HR strap just before the run.
    Make sure it's pretty tight. Watch the readout for a bit too.
    See if it jumps around.

    And let's say it was correct. There's nothing wrong with the
    reading. It just shows you what your heart was doing to maintain
    that effort level. Coupled with your RHR, looks to me that you
    are in regular shape for regular people. From an athlete's
    perspective, you've got lots of improving to do. Your HR is
    just one indicator of your fitness level. Figure it out and you can
    use it to assist you in gauging your types of workouts. And you
    can check it to measure your progress.

    a last point, you might think about what you're trying to accomplish
    by running 3 miles at 7.5 mph. Perhaps you're not getting
    the benefit you're looking for. Maybe longer and slower, or shorter
    and faster. Anyway, I know it's fun to have and the fact that you
    can run anywhere now and count the distance is great. I like
    it that I can measure my side trips when I'm out running. And I can
    map new routes at will.
    ....thehick
     
  7. > i've just purchased a garmin 301

    Aside from the other good responses you've got, I thought the
    just-released-or-soon-to-be 305 was touted as having much more reliable HRM
    functionality, which would imply the 301 has, well, room for much
    improvement in that regard.
     
  8. On Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:10:28 -0500, "Charlie Pendejo"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Aside from the other good responses you've got


    He means mine.
     
  9. Steve Hansen

    Steve Hansen Guest

    pam in sc wrote:

    > matstand wrote:
    >
    >> i've just purchased a garmin 301 speed/distance heart monitor. ... 217 bpm. ...
    >> Is a heart rate like this indicative of heart problems? Or is it a
    >> mistake by the machine or the way I am using it?

    >


    False readings are very common. The chest strap needs to make good
    electrical contact with the skin at both electrodes. To assure good
    contact, there needs to be some moisture or other conducting
    material in the gap. During dry, cool months, sweat might not be
    enough to establish or maintain contact. This problem can be
    avoided by providing conducting liquid or gel between the skin and
    each contact. I use some saliva to provide the needed conductance.
    Some people use store-bought contact gels.

    Even when contact is good, with liquid/gel in place, jiggling of the
    contact can cause momentary loss of electrical connection. A loose
    strap allows more jiggling than a tight strap, of course.
     
Loading...
Loading...