Discussion: Heart Rate Monitor training question

I have recently bought a new heart rate monitor to help with my training. It records my average and maximum HR over my training sessions. Using the standard max HR calculation I should be maxing out at 192. I have seen my HR hit 190 while doing a hill rep session. However, on almost every long run I have done, it tells me that my max HR has been somwhere between 205 and 225. I do push hard on hills but I don't watch my HRM 100% of the time so I have never actually seen my HR work its way up to that maximum.

Can anyone tell me if it is at all possible for me to have a max HR as high as that, or is it more likely a fault with the gadget? To give an idea of my level of fitness, my resting HR is 44.

sounds like a gadget problem, used to happen to me sometimes also, and I knew my HR was never that high. usually the problem was bad contact with the monitor strap (a little spit helps), low batteries (sounds like yours are new), or external interference, like from certain power lines or subway tracks.

Those numbers seem really high, but I'm not so sure. Set up an experiment with a big hill or something, and really watch the watch.

I used to use a foam ring to hold my HRM onto my bike handlebars (I know---so old school). It's nice because you see it a lot.

The highest I ever saw mine was 209, when I was about 25---I was climbing a big hill out-of-the-saddle with no smaller gear left. When I was about 30, I had a stress test terminated at 200bpm, as measured with hospital gear. When I was 39, I hit 196 in a finish chute 300m from the finish.

In college, we did these sprint drills where immediately after stopping we'd count our pulse while the coach gave us 6 second markings. Then you multiply by 10 to get your HR. I've gotten 23 several times that way, which indicates 230 bpm. I verified that he was giving the 6 second intervals correctly, and I'm certain I'm within one on the count, so worst case I figure I had 220.

Although I think Ken might be right about the gadget problems, there's a decent chance it's right. I'd propose a test: Get your HR to 180, then put your hand on your heart and look at your watch. You should get 3 beats every second. Do it for 5 or 10 seconds, and you shouldn't notice much drifting forward or backward second-to-second, assuming you're holding it at 180.

This test is why I believe my 230 was correct---I was getting just under 4 beats per second.

Hey - it's a posibility. Have a chat to Boltboi if you want to compare insanely fast HR. I've seen a young bloke record an AVERAGE HR of 196 for an intervals session that was 1:1 work: recovery.

My HR will never get there, bt htere's pretty massive individual variation.

What type of HR monitor did you buy, and how do you like it? I was thinking of getting one for myself, esp. since it is a giant pain to hold the hand grips on the inclined treadmill for 30 seconds to get a result at my health club.

Also, where did you buy it and how much did it cost (if those questions are not completely impertinent)?

My HR monitor routinely records some very high HRs in the first 5-10 minutes of exercise. I know they are not correct, and I know other people who see the same thing on their HRMs. When I look at the computer download, I'll often see a sudden jump from a believable HR to an unbelievably high one, then it will go back down just as suddenly. Sometimes it will stay at the same value while it is high, rather than varying up and down, as it does normally. I'm guessing that this phenomenon has something to do with the time between heartbeats being more variable during the warm-up period, and this might confuse the monitor.

Bash, it might also be due to your magnetic personality, wearing off throughout the workout and thus affecting your HRM less.

Good point - sometimes I do get cranky in longer workouts, especially in hot June weather!

It could also be that after 5-10 minutes you've worked up enough of a sweat to have good contact with the band.

It could be, although I usually use water - or rarely electroconductive gel - to establish good contact before starting to record. I lent my HRM to my 70-ish Mom before a walk once, and I don't think she broke a sweat during the session, but her HR download had the same pattern with a spike near the start.

My HRM used to jump around alot showing unreasonable HRs. I was using tap water to moisten the leads. Then, I switched to pure slobber and the HR readings are more consistent with reality now.

simkiss - This is my heartrate monitor and also the place from I bought it, but it's a UK site - not sure if they export to the US. I am happy with it. I used to have a Polar one but it was a very basic model and when its batteries died I decided to upgrade.

My observation is that it is contact related. The peaks usually occur in he first couple of hundred metres of a run. I regularly put mine on dry and it can take some exercise time in winter before I've worked up enough sweat to make the contacts. Then I see the same incredible peaks (max out at 240 bpm) occurring well into a session when I would expect stability. The downloaded traces show these as transient peaks.
I've found spit is a pretty good readily available conductive medium. Considering the amount and the chemical content of the perspiration which ends up on the transmitter band I don't have a problem with starting out with a bit of spittle.

OK, I didn't want to admit it, but I use spit too. I was just trying to be ladylike with my "water" comment. So you probably never want to ask to borrow my HR monitor...

So if poor contact really is the problem, wouldn't it produce low HR readings?

I was seeing 240's on my Timex and I thought it was odd. Then I figured it was radio interference, but read that Timex uses a digital signal to prevent cross-reading (with other runners) and interference.

My latest theory is also skin contact quality. I lick mine every time.

rwagnon - you lick your skin every time?!

Well, I taste great! The Timex sensor pads only taste so-so.