Fellow exercisers

[Pheidippides]

(and especially our doctors, and doubly so our cardiologist), I have a question.

I had my long run today. Sweltering weather and a very real threat of rain had me running on a treadmill, so I increased my mileage a bit.

I ran slightly slower than I usually do since I was going long. My pace was very consistent, and I got into a zone.

I ran for about an hour and half.

The treadmills I run on have metal hand plates that you can use to get your heart rate. Immediately after running, I took my pulse on the treadmill.

To my shock, it was only 120. That seemed very low for having run for 90 minutes. I would have expected something closer to 180, but I'm no expert at all.

Two questions:

1, does anybody know how reliable those pulse rate things are? I suspect the answer is "not very".

2, assuming that 120 was right pulse, what does that mean? Do I have a superhuman heart or something? Is that normal for exercising that long?

[Babs]

(and especially our doctors, and doubly so our cardiologist), I have a question.

I had my long run today. Sweltering weather and a very real threat of rain had me running on a treadmill, so I increased my mileage a bit.

I ran slightly slower than I usually do since I was going long. My pace was very consistent, and I got into a zone.

I ran for about an hour and half.

The treadmills I run on have metal hand plates that you can use to get your heart rate. Immediately after running, I took my pulse on the treadmill.

To my shock, it was only 120. That seemed very low for having run for 90 minutes. I would have expected something closer to 180, but I'm no expert at all.

Two questions:

1, does anybody know how reliable those pulse rate things are? I suspect the answer is "not very".

2, assuming that 120 was right pulse, what does that mean? Do I have a superhuman heart or something? Is that normal for exercising that long?

I think 120 was probably right:

Regarding your first/second question: it's an indication that your cardio fitness is pretty impressive.

Regarding your third question, heart rate is a measure of exertion more than endurance, right? So it doesn't matter so much that you ran 90 minutes. What's more relevant is that you slowed your pace and you were running on a level surface in a climate-controlled setting. Given those variables, it's not surprising that your pulse was lower than you expected. But even with those factors taken into account, a rate like that is a great sign that all those workouts are paying off.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Given my advanced years, my cardio numbers are worthless for comparison purposes, but I rode today for 7.5 hours and according to my Garmin monitor my average heart rate was 109, and my max was only 129 (which I hit at mile 97 on a small climb that I decided to "hammer" to impress absolutely no one).

My numbers are made even more anomalous by the fact that I've been on a beta blocker for nearly twenty years because of hypertension. It has the effect of reducing one's heart rate. It makes it nearly impossible for me to hit anything close to what would ordinarily be my maximum.

[CardiacCoug]

So you probably know that your maximum heart rate is calculated from the following formula:

HR max = 220 - age. But there is quite a bit of individual variability in this. If you can push yourself to exercise all out, you can determine your own personal maximum heart rate.

Exercising at about 60% of maximum heart rate (what it sounds like you were doing) is great for general fitness/weight loss.

If you're really going for more serious aerobic training (say competitive basketball), you would want to work out at at least 70% of maximum heart rate.

Running over 80% of maximum heart rate will get you into anaerobic metabolic territory -- most people can't keep that up for very long, and you will probably end up being sore the next day.

Also, those treadmill handgrip monitors aren't always very accurate -- we have one of those, too, and it is consistently about 20 bpm slower than when I actually check my radial pulse.

[Katy Lied]

Also, those treadmill handgrip monitors aren't always very accurate -- we have one of those, too, and it is consistently about 20 bpm slower than when I actually check my radial pulse.

I always wear a heart rate monitor and the machine HR would always be the exact bpm as my HR watch monitor. Then I found out that my chest strap broadcasts my bpm to the machine as well as to my watch, so they should be the same. In fact, I can just wear the chest strap on the treadmill, and it will show my HR without having to touch the metal plates.

Niku, if you really want to measure something cool, take a bottle of water the next time you run on the treadmill. After about 30 minutes, keep your HR constant (somewhere between 108 and 118). Then, take 2 big gulps of water and see how long it takes for your body to express the water in the form of sweat. For me, its about 1:10. (It will take less time the higher your HR is) Always makes me think my body is a lean mean hydrating machine.

[LA Ute]

I just want to know why, after a 50-minute aerobic walk that leaves me pretty worn out, my dog wants to keep going. Maybe because she's only a year old?

Seriously, for 20 years I've been using the HR formula Cardiac lays out and it works like a charm for weight control. Provided that I eat right . . . .

[ERCougar]

No offense, niku, and I'm sure you're in great shape, but at your age, if you were breaking any kind of a sweat, I have a hard time believing 120. I wouldn't trust the hand monitors at all--I've seen them be accurate, but I've also seen them be way off. The only chest straps I really trust are Polar (as they're the only ones to my knowledge that have been verified). I used to have a Performance brand monitor that was all over the place. I don't even totally trust my Garmin--although it's much better than the Performance one, it still gives me a funny reading once in a while. You can check these numbers easily enough by just checking your pulse manually.

PAC's numbers aren't relevant to yours because as he pointed out, he's on a beta-blocker.

To answer your second question, you need some physics. Cardiac output is defined as your stroke volume (how much blood is pumped out with each contraction of your heart) times your heart rate. Aerobic fitness will increase your heart's stroke volume. Thus, you require a lower heart rate to maintain the same cardiac output. So yes, required heart rate will come down on the same workout as you get more fit. However, if it's really 120, you're not getting any kind of fitness benefits from your workout.

[LA Ute]

You can check these numbers easily enough by just checking your pulse manually.

I never use the hand monitors on those machines. If you exercise enough you can pretty much tell if you are in the "zone" you need to be in, and when the monitor shows 110 or 120 you know it's off.

Assuming niku is 35, his H.R. should be 130 to get a minimal decent aerobic benefit. If he's 30, then his magic number is 133-135.

No charge, niku!

[Pheidippides]

No offense, niku, and I'm sure you're in great shape, but at your age, if you were breaking any kind of a sweat, I have a hard time believing 120. I wouldn't trust the hand monitors at all--I've seen them be accurate, but I've also seen them be way off. The only chest straps I really trust are Polar (as they're the only ones to my knowledge that have been verified). I used to have a Performance brand monitor that was all over the place. I don't even totally trust my Garmin--although it's much better than the Performance one, it still gives me a funny reading once in a while. You can check these numbers easily enough by just checking your pulse manually.

PAC's numbers aren't relevant to yours because as he pointed out, he's on a beta-blocker.

To answer your second question, you need some physics. Cardiac output is defined as your stroke volume (how much blood is pumped out with each contraction of your heart) times your heart rate. Aerobic fitness will increase your heart's stroke volume. Thus, you require a lower heart rate to maintain the same cardiac output. So yes, required heart rate will come down on the same workout as you get more fit. However, if it's really 120, you're not getting any kind of fitness benefits from your workout.

See, that's exactly why I'm skeptical. I was drenched in sweat, as one would be after running 10 miles.

Any way you look at it, I'm alive and feel great this morning, so I'm not super concerned, I suppose.

[Pheidippides]

I never use the hand monitors on those machines. If you exercise enough you can pretty much tell if you are in the "zone" you need to be in, and when the monitor shows 110 or 120 you know it's off.

Assuming niku is 35, his H.R. should be 130 to get a minimal decent aerobic benefit. If he's 30, then his magic number is 133-135.

No charge, niku!

Lawyers come through yet again!

[bluegoose]

When you say immedately after finishing, do you mean "immediately" as in the moment you stop running, or did you wait some time? Did you do any kind of cool down jog or walk on the machine before you turned it off? I've noticed that even as little as 30-45 seconds can make a big difference when monitoring HR, especially with a sub-max effort like an endurance run or slow ride.

That seems awfully low for 90 minutes on a treadmill. Did you have much to drink over those 90 minutes?

Last night I put in a movie and decided to ride the bike while it was on. My trainer broke earlier in the week, so I pulled out my wife's stationary bike from the garage. Just for fun I wore my Garmin HRM while I rode to compare it to the metal grips on the bike. I've found the Garmin to be extremely accurate, when comparing to carotid pulse and my old Polar monitor. For the entire hour that I rode the HRs were within about 2 beats of each other. So for the Schwinn bikes I woul say they are very accurate.

[Pheidippides]

When you say immedately after finishing, do you mean "immediately" as in the moment you stop running, or did you wait some time? Did you do any kind of cool down jog or walk on the machine before you turned it off? I've noticed that even as little as 30-45 seconds can make a big difference when monitoring HR, especially with a sub-max effort like an endurance run or slow ride.

That seems awfully low for 90 minutes on a treadmill. Did you have much to drink over those 90 minutes?

Last night I put in a movie and decided to ride the bike while it was on. My trainer broke earlier in the week, so I pulled out my wife's stationary bike from the garage. Just for fun I wore my Garmin HRM while I rode to compare it to the metal grips on the bike. I've found the Garmin to be extremely accurate, when comparing to carotid pulse and my old Polar monitor. For the entire hour that I rode the HRs were within about 2 beats of each other. So for the Schwinn bikes I woul say they are very accurate.

It was about 30 seconds to a minute after I stopped running, but no more. I'd say closer to 30 seconds. I did have about a cup of water while running (since I got dehydrated last time I ran that far) - just enough to wet my mouth a few times.

[ERCougar]

It was about 30 seconds to a minute after I stopped running, but no more. I'd say closer to 30 seconds. I did have about a cup of water while running (since I got dehydrated last time I ran that far) - just enough to wet my mouth a few times.

You could be down to 120 after 30 seconds of rest. I'll take back everything I said--it's legit.

[RC Vikings]

Given my advanced years, my cardio numbers are worthless for comparison purposes, but I rode today for 7.5 hours and according to my Garmin monitor my average heart rate was 109, and my max was only 129 (which I hit at mile 97 on a small climb that I decided to "hammer" to impress absolutely no one).

My numbers are made even more anomalous by the fact that I've been on a beta blocker for nearly twenty years because of hypertension. It has the effect of reducing one's heart rate. It makes it nearly impossible for me to hit anything close to what would ordinarily be my maximum.

If it's true the heart only has so many beats in it then you are going to live until you're 110 and perhaps see those little flying cars you are hoping for. I can't pump up my tires without it going over 120 bpm.