UKH

Hi,

I am 44 years women. I have been running for four years. My pace is very medium. I ran average 8KM /Per hour speed. My heart rate during my activity is always higher say average 155 to 160. My resting HR is between 58 to 62 Anywhere while i wake up.

If i walk my HR is below 120 to 135. Once i started running at any time even after warmup etc it is jumping to 160.

I do think i should ignore it. but sometime i am thinking i should reduce it. I have tried to train my HR from the beginning. It is always at this rage only while running.
Is it anything i should consider?

In reply to rajicheena:

None of those numbers seem totally unreasonable to me (I am not an expert though)

What is your perceived exertion level at 160bpm? Do you have any idea of your maximum HR?

In reply to NorthernGrit:

I donot feel very hard after i finished with average 160 BPM for even after 20 KM.

Just to compare my friends mostly male are saying for the speed of 8KM per hour the Average HR of 160 to 165 is too high for my age. Actually i donot feel any exertion but this saying is disturbing me a lot hence i keep consciously checking my watch reducing my speed. Hence i could not even go at 7KM per hour.

My maximum HR could be around 180 when i tested sprinting.

In reply to rajicheena:


HR is very variable, both between people and for the same individual at different times and in different settings. What you’ve described doesn’t sound particularly strange to me.

What reduced my heart rate at a given intensity was doing steady endurance work at a low intensity.

In reply to rajicheena:

Your lactate threshold HR might be quite high, which would explain how you feel ok after averaging 160.

In reply to rajicheena:

How long does it take for the heart rate to drop back to resting after you stop running?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

Actually i can see the reduction immediately if i stopped running and walking then it will come down to around 130 ish. If i completely stop then within half hr by the time i come home it will be around 90 to 95 ish.

If i go for an hike even for one full day my hr average is 140 only. I tried 45KM hiking last week. finished in 12 hrs with elevation of 300 m. didnot even exhausted after 12 hr though i only walked fast. I could even do household chores after that and recovered within a day with simple calf soreness.

Only in running my HR is around 160 ave. That means all the time same 160 while running.

In reply to rajicheena:

I'm not a doctor so read on with caution:
I think if I were you I'd do a max HR measurement - loads of protocols on the web, but basically hill repeats after a good warm up would do it, aiming for 100% effort. You may find you've got a high revving ticker, in which case you'll have to adjust your training zones.

Alternatively, sell the HR monitor and just enjoy the running ????

Btw is the monitor a wrist one or a chest strap one? I assume you have checked what it reads with a measure of your own?

In reply to Andy Hardy:

I like your comment of sell the HR and enjoy running!! thanks

I use wrist watch Garmin vivoactive HR.

In reply to rajicheena:

From https://www.digitaltrends.com/fitness-apparel-reviews/garmin-vivoactive-hr-...

"Heart rate data

The more we test wrist-based heart rate tracking, the more convinced we are that it should not be used for getting accurate heart rates during vigorous exercise. The chart above shows our heart rate while cycling with both the Elevate optical monitor and a chest strap. The top graph is from the chest strap and the lower graph is from the vivoactive HR’s wrist monitor. Both graphs show an elevated heart rate over time, but the depth of detail delivered by the chest strap is totally missing from the vivoactive HR’s optical monitoring of the ride. Based on this ride and other testing, we believe that during exercise using a heart rate chest strap is always best. But that’s ok. The vivoactive HR can pair with any ANT+ heart rate strap and use that as the sensor. This doesn’t mean that the wrist based heart rate monitor is a waste technology and money. It works great for checking resting heart rate while sleeping, or for occasional heart rate checks during the day. It also helps the watch deliver more accurate calorie burn metrics and can show general periods of elevated heart rate over the course of the day. Which is valuable to anyone who cares about their fitness."

So maybe try a chest strap and see if you get different results?

In reply to rajicheena:


According to people on Bikeradar (Cycling forum) these are not very accurate at recording your heart rate. As mentioned above try a monitor with a chest strap.

In reply to rajicheena:

Wrist HR devises are dodgy. I’ve just looked at my numbers from training last night on Garmin Connect and it giving identical heart rate for my 9 minute mile warm up as it is for my 6 minute mile 20 minute tempo.

In reply to rajicheena:

I think you are overthinking this. Heart rate is a very individual thing. As long as you don't feel unwell I don't think there is anything wrong with maintaining a heart rate of 155-160. The key with a heart rate monitor is to learn what is normal and what is abnormal for you and compare what you are seeing with how you feel. Don't try to compare yourself with everyone else.

As others have said, wrist based monitors are less accurate than chest straps - however I have found mine to be consistent if not accurate, so I can still use it to track myself as long as I don't expect my measurements to be absolute.

I am 36. My baseline measures are similar to yours. Resting just under 60bpm, walking briskly around 120-130bpm, might hit 140 marching up a munro with a big pack. When I run, an easy jog will be around 160 bpm, I'll maintain around 175 bpm over the course of a half marathon race and around 180 bpm in a 10km race. So what you say actually sounds perfectly normal to me!