your not convinced that the higher the intensity of a work out the higher your heart rate will be? in your post you talk about percieved effort that is irrelevant to the OP statements as they have a HRM so what they are actually doing is quantifiable and what they perceive is of no value to this discussion.

IF however there was NO HRM then yes perception of exercise would play a massive part in whether your working in the right zone. Perception of intensity based on the Borg scale can be manipulated by diet.

No, I agree that the harder you work out the higher the heart rate will be. I'm saying that one person's high is different from another person's high. The OP mentioned that her heart rate is not getting anywhere near the charts recommended numbers according to the HR monitor. In that case, perceived effort DOES come into play. I ignore those charts and go only with my perceived efforts because if I didn't, I'd be in my max zone taking a leisurely walk around the park. My perceived effort tells me I'm not working very hard, but my HR disagrees. I think it's possible the OP has the OPPOSITE problem. Perhaps she is giving her best effort but her HR is telling her otherwise.

A phrase like "not working hard enough" isn't a comment on "simple physiology": it's a value statement that her will is weak, that she is being lazy and half-hearted. I don't think there is any reason to jump to this conclusion. One, even if you are being indulgent and not pushing yourself, you can burn calories, and if you do it enough, you can burn quite a lot of calories. Two, I know that even when I go all out, my heart rate stays well below what the calculators estimate as my best range. Yet there is significant evidence that I am burning calories at a high rate--I am eating like a pig these days (1800/day) and still losing at 2 lb/week average. So that exercise that isn't "hard enough" sure seems to be worth doing.

How? how does comparing a quaintifiable number on a machine and matching it with a chart based on % of an age adjusted maximum heart rate have anything to do with perception? either her HR is telling her she is working hard enough or it isn't.

Work is a term in science that describes exerting a force on something to move it some distance. i.e pushing a weight or your legs pushing your body forward to run.

"not working hard enough" is nothing to do with her will or being lazy it means simply to increase intensity.

And work in every other context (like, say, a message board) means "effort".

Furthermore, I don't think you can conclude she needs to "increase intensity". The OP is already "running with all [her] might" and "panting". To me, it sounds like her intensity is just fine, and she's certainly burning calories, so why on earth does she need to increase her intensity?

Unless she has been medically tested in a laboratory environment YOU have no idea what the OP's ACTUAL working heart rate is. (There are functional tests, but they are painful and largely unneccessary)

While 220-age is a nice convenient formula it is merely the centerpoint on a bell curve of ACTUAL MHR. I know a woman who's max HR is 240+ at the age of 37. No joke. She runs marathons for 4 hours at what most HRM would consider "120% of max". She is on one extreme of the bell curve. There will be people on the other extreme. By your logic she should be passing out at about 50 yards into the race and yet she is still alive at the end.

Also, given that the OP describes her breathing as "panting" then it is doubtful she is as underworking as you think and it is more likely the TARGET that is at fault than the work effort.

It is a medical FACT that there are multiple factors that contribute to HR levels and it is possible that there are other factors at play. (personal example, there was a period in my life that due to simple medical issues my MAXHR dropped about 30 BPM lower than normal. I was working out to the point of nearly passing out and yet my HR stayed low. I've also had medical issues that caused me to hit 140 simply getting out of bed)

To the OP:

Go by feel and as your fitness and weight improves if you maintain this kind of heart rate measured on MULTIPLE monitors or measured by the far more reliable "count your pulse" method, it might be worth talking to a doctor about, just to gain peace of mind that there isnt some other underlying issue.

1. i try to answer where ever possible with scientifically based answer. and i'm happy wherever proven wrong to publically amend anything i've put.

2. maybe her intensity is fine for the situation but she asked why her HR isn't going up enough. simply her HR isn't up to the level as the intensity isn't enough to make it.

i have no idea why if shes burning calories she'd want to increase the intensity thats something she would need to answer. but the question was why isn't my HR getting to this level simple answer intensity.

"Scientifically based" is not the same as using a scientific term of art.

She doesn't know if she is burning calories/improving her health. That's why she asked the question--she wants to know if her heart rate suggests she's doing something wrong, screwing up, wasting her time, failing. Your answer suggests that she is doing those things. Do you see how depressing and incorrect that would be? There is plenty of evidence, IMHO, that even at a somewhat lower heart rate she is more likely than not doing herself plenty of good.

I know I have no idea what her acutal HR is however.
1. OP is comparing her Hr to a number on a chart
2. OP wonders why her Hr is not the same as that on a chart.

because the intensity of exercise doesn't warrant that. regardless of actual or hypothetical ranges. i never stated the ranges and wanted to match up she did. i never suggested she gets to the range target she wanted to know why it wasn't up there.

i simply answered the question how come my HR doesn't get that high. There is nothing else in the answer no hidden message, no hurtful comments nothing other than to get your HR up farther increase intensity.

why is it so hard for people to actually read what i'm saying without loading emotional and psychological subtexts (which dont' exist) on to it

Because you missed the emotional and psychological subtexts of the OP (which do exist).

Original post.

Hello all, I started wearing a heartrate monitor during excercise a while ago. I think most of you are familiar with the zones 'fat burning', 'aerobic' etc. My prolem is that I have trouble reaching even the lowest zone (fat burning), I'll run with all my might, panting, but it is impossible to keep my heart rate up.

I do have a very low resting heartrate, even morbidly obese (and with no exercise at all) my resting heartrate would go under 50 when sitting on a chair. Could this have anything to do with it? Maybe the difference is too big? Or am I just not fit enough?

(My doctor knows about my slow heartrate and has reassured me she can't hear anything wrong with it)

where does it state 1. burning calories. 2. improving health. 3. mentions anything to do with wasting time?

i see quesitons 1.can't keep HR up to chart level. 2. is OP's low startin HR anything to do with it. 3. is she fit enough. i see no emotional subtext nor emotionally charged wording. as i seem apparantly unable to read something that emotional can you please highlight and explain the emotional phrases from the OP so i can look out for them in future.

Subtext here is "I am trying really, really hard. But I am worried that I am failing. (note "I have trouble")

This is how you know she's insecure about her own abilities and worries that somehow the problem is with her--that she's doing something wrong, failing in some way.

And of course she wants to know about the effectiveness of the exercise regarding weight loss--that's the whole point of this board, after all.

thats the subtext you perceive and no doubt we could put that phrase to 100 people unconnected to this threat and get 100 different answers. hence i do no do subtext as if you don't do it you can't get it wrong. to me the OP means nothing other than the words she put until proven otherwise. if she had meant something else why didn't she type it?

no its a simple yes or no answer. am i fit enough. i.e will i be able to achieve said goal if i get fitter.

as the op has lost around 70lb i was of the opinion she knew how to lose weight so therefore wouldn't put something about it.

To get back to OP's question:

My question would be, does your HRM have a fitness test function? I have a polar where you do a resting heart rate and then a fitness test which will tell you based on these numbers (you also enter your height, weight, age, sex, etc) it adjusts what your zoned heart rates should be. I know that my #'s have changed as I've lost weight. Perhaps there's something with the settings that can be done that will help?

Wishing you the beset of luck!