[BoiseShan]

Hi all.

I just got a heart rate monitor and used it for the first time. Guess I was pretty surprised to find out that I spent about 27 minutes of a 30 minute workout above "the zone." Personally, I think I need to adjust the max heart rate on the monitor--I really didn't feel that I was working all that hard.

How can I find out what my max/optimal heart rate should be?

Many thanks!

[Get n healthy]

If you can talk, you are in the perfect range. If you can sing, you need to step it up a bit. If you can't talk because your too short of breath, you need to slow it down a bit. Listen to your body, it knows the best heart rate for YOU duing a workout...then adjust your monitor to that. Works every time.

[makeyourownplans]

There's a lot of conflicting information out there about "the zone." Many experts have rejected the idea of the zone because you'll never burn enough calories. The best analogy I've read is: would you rather have 90% of all the money I have, or 3% of all the money Ross Perot has? Even if you're burning calories more efficiently in the zone, you're still burning fewer overall. You even felt this by not getting your heart rate up enough.

Even if you decided to stick with "the zone" program, the bottom line is to listen to your body and get your cardio going!

I've always been told what Get n Healthy said and agree. I just got a HRM too, and the instructions said the "official" max number is 220 minus your age. I've been trying for a "target" rate of 70% and will work up from there.

Therefore:

220-40=180 Max
180x70%=126 Target

I'm under strict orders from my ex not to push to hard so I'll avoid burn out and injuries. He knows I can be alittle competitive and push too hard. But, I do think I try to up it to 135 since that feels pretty comfortable.

Good Luck

[makeyourownplans]

Found this on a site from the American Heart Association:
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4736

Age Target HR Zone MaximumHeart Rate

20 years 100–170 beats per minute 200 beats per minute
25 years 98–166 beats per minute 195 beats per minute
30 years 95–162 beats per minute 190 beats per minute
35 years 93–157 beats per minute 185 beats per minute
40 years 90–153 beats per minute 180 beats per minute
45 years 88–149 beats per minute 175 beats per minute
50 years 85–145 beats per minute 170 beats per minute
55 years 83–140 beats per minute 165 beats per minute
60 years 80–136 beats per minute 160 beats per minute
65 years 78–132 beats per minute 155 beats per minute
70 years 75–128 beats per minute 150 beats per minute

[Meg]

Right, the general rule of thumb for determining your max heart rate (HR) is 220 - your age. It's a rough guideline.

Then to determine the zone you're exercising in:

65 - 75% of max HR = low intensity

75 - 85% of max HR = moderate intensity

85 - 90% of max HR = high intensity

I love my HR monitor but ignore its zones and go by the above guidelines. I like to do either moderate-high intensity steady state cardio or moderate intensity cardio with high intensity intervals.

[MissGiggles]

I go by what Meg uses, but it depends on the workout. Once in a while I do a long steady workout of the low intensity, but the other times I try to do mix up the moderate and high intensity. Polar somewhat recommends that approach..

If you have a Polar F11 heart rate monitor you can have it suggest a fitness program , or if you have another model you may be able to login to their polarpersonaltrainer website and it will give you suggestions for how much time to spend in each zone.

[BoiseShan]

Thanks for all of the help. My workouts seem to fall into the zones that Meg listed. I think I'll just adjust the HR monitor to work for me, instead of the other way around!

It's funny--my husband also got a monitor at the same time. When I told him where I kept my heart rate (39 years old; averaged between 145-150 beats/minute) he almost died! Couldn't believe I was able to maintain it so high.

I guess it's all about where our fitness level is. Although it's surprising that mine seems to be higher than his....

[akolang]

you know, the general method of 220-age is not bad, but it's actually not the preferred method of determining HR zones. the Karvonen method is considered by many as a superior method.

it too uses the calculation of 220-age, but also considers your Resting heart rate. what i've found is that while the very upper ranges of both methods are pretty close, there is quite a bit of variance in the other ranges...resulting in the Karvonen method recommending a higher target heart rate per percentage than the general method.

as with all things, do your own research before deciding whether to adapt this method...just google karvonen heart rate...you'll also find many online calculators for it. i'd make sure i got the same results from at least 2 or 3 calculators, though. i think briancalkins has a decent, easy to understand, explanation of it. FYI...ACSM endorses the Karvonen calculation.

bear in mind that with this method, you'll need an accurate resting heart rate number. the preferred time to determine your resting heart rate is very soon after waking up in the morning, before you've moved around or gotten up. again, do a little research to satisfy yourself on how to determine your resting heart rate number.

also, safety first...always the best idea is to have your physician review the numbers for the various zones and give you the OK...you could easily email the nurse ans she could run it by your doctor as a consult pretty quickly. and of course, listen to your body...if what the books say is 70% actually feels like 90% when you're doing it...go by what your body says.

anyway, just a thought...