Maximum Heart Rate for Exercise

[JumpyTheFrog]

I read that 70-85% of your maximum heart rate is considered vigorous exercise. That gives me a range of 130-158. I've gone to Jazzercise 29 days since Feb 1 and I wear a heart rate monitor. I can tell you that for me, a heart rate of 130 isn't vigorous and doesn't lead to much, if any, sweating. In fact, anything below 150 feels like a half-hearted workout. I don't start breathing heavy until about 170.

 

Is the stuff about maximum heart rate accurate or partly bunk? I have a heart time believing exercise that doesn't have me sweating much is "vigorous."

[Laurie4b]

Well, I just went to a top cardiologist who specializes in sports medicine so his whole expertise is in the realm of how hard  you can/should go when you exercise. (Most cardiologists simply refer to the formula for everyone.) He doesn't use the formula, but it's not bunk. Like you, I don't feel like I'm exercising "vigorously" until I'm in the 150s- 170s. 130 feels like "meh." However, he told me that while that wouldn't harm me for short periods, it won't help me much more than the same range you quoted for your maximum. He computed my range based on an echo stress test I'd had and the mets. For me, based on my particular physiology, mid-130s or so is technically in the vigorous category. It was darned close to that formula. 

Edited March 6, 2016 by Laurie4b

[JumpyTheFrog]

Like you, I don't feel like I'm exercising "vigorously" until I'm in the 150s- 170s. 130 feels like "meh." However, he told me that while that wouldn't harm me for short periods, it won't help me much more than the same range you quoted for your maximum.

Well, it's not like I'm able to exercise at 170-180 for more than maybe five minutes before I have to slow down and catch my breath. So it sounds like it is fine for intervals or short time periods? Because I certainly interpret "vigorous" to mean "can't keep this up for long" and not "can do this for 30 minutes without trouble".

[AngieC]

The formula is bunk. Workout at a HR you can sustain for the whole workout comfortably and you will be fine. You can also do some exercise testing, plot it and get a curve fit to calculate your own zones, if you are interested. Search critical heart rate zones and you might find a good method. (My husband has a PhD in exercise physiology and I would get specifics for you but he is out of town.)

Also, you will burn more calories and get more fit by working out harder (within reason) so barring medical issues, there is no added benefit to working out super easy unless you just don't like working out hard(er).

 

ETA: Just had a brief conversation with my husband, he says he would call the HR formula a "crude estimate" rather than bunk.

Edited March 7, 2016 by AngieC

[Joyofsixreboot]

I had read the heart rate formula stuff but I just run and don't worry about it. You know if you're working hard. This presumes good health of course. I got a Fitbit for Christmas that let me know I cruise along between 155-160 easily but my 70%-85% should only be 116-133 bpm. Bah to that.

[Laurie4b]

Well, it's not like I'm able to exercise at 170-180 for more than maybe five minutes before I have to slow down and catch my breath. So it sounds like it is fine for intervals or short time periods? Because I certainly interpret "vigorous" to mean "can't keep this up for long" and not "can do this for 30 minutes without trouble".

 

This is the way it is for me, exactly. I only hit that rate in intervals, whether in Zumba (which my instructor structures as a HIIT) or in my own interval training.  But apparently "vigorous" in medical parlance is not quite as high as our standards. ;)  Moderate for a reasonably fit adult would be in the range of "brisk walking pace." (I hardly feel like I am exercising at moderate.) "Vigorous" would be more akin to jogging. The sports cardiologist said the way I described my Zumba class that he would categorize that as vigorous, which sounds like your Jazzercise as well. Hope that helps!