Heart Rate Formulas

lisaadele

Active Member
I was reading up on calculating maximum heart rate and came across a new formula that was the result of a study in Norway.
/www.ntnu.edu/cerg/hrmax-info

They have come up with a 'new & improved ' formula which they feel should replace the current 220-age one.

The new formula proposed is 211-0.64*age (and times this by 60% for CFS)

In my case the new formula gives me a max HR of 108, compared to 103 with the current one. Hmm....
The article suggest there is a lot of deviation for individuals and that one should really determine their own maximum.

In the absence of a stress test it makes me feel like my "number " is not so set in stone.... was thinking of compromising and going with a number in between.
 

Upgrayedd

Active Member
In my case the new formula gives me a max HR of 108, compared to 103 with the current one. Hmm....
The article suggest there is a lot of deviation for individuals and that one should really determine their own maximum.
Interesting. I'm guessing you and I are the same age, as my numbers calculate the same. This is of course using the 60% reduction that you stated for CFS patients. I've never heard that before - where does that figure come from? It makes sense that with the PEM, we would want to maintain a lower HR; I just never heard that specific figure. Without the adjustment, the maximums would be more like 172 or 180, depending upon the method.

103 or 108, isn't really much of a difference, but in either case they seem impractically low for any kind of exercise target. My pulse is often between 88-100 just sitting on the couch. If I did any kind of exercise at all, even just walking, taking a shower, doing the dishes, having sex, etc., my heart rate would exceed these calculated maximum heart rates in, well, a heart beat.

When I was healthy, my resting heart rate was in the low 60's and my rate during moderate to intense exercise was easily 150 to 160 and could easily be as high as 180 under really intense exercise.

If my goal is to never exceed 108, I couldn't really do anything...
 

Remy

Administrator
I love how they consider "active rest" to be a light jog...:hilarious:

(and times this by 60% for CFS)
Did they study this too to come up with that figure?

I also wonder how HRmax corresponds to the anaerobic threshold. Is that the 70% that they say is the sweet spot where lactic acid is cleared best?

Because my HRmax otherwise is 185, and 70% of that is 128 which is about where I'm at when I go hiking with the dogs at the park. Still a lot higher than it should be, but that's manageable and I feel fine after.

If we are saying that HRmax for MECFS is somewhere under 110 for people in their 40s, then the anaerobic threshold would have to be 75-80. And that is pretty scary because like @Upgrayedd said, I'd never be able to do anything at all.

I think stuff like this is really interesting but I'm just curious where the numbers applying it to MECFS came from? Did I miss it?
 
Last edited:

lisaadele

Active Member
I have no idea where the 60% came from. I've come across it though repeatedly in the past and will post any articles/books that I can dig up.

The CFIDS self help site uses this 60% while pointing out again that there is variability. To me sounds like a guide not a rule.
http://www.cfidsselfhelp.org/library/pacing-numbers-using-your-heart-rate-to-stay-inside-energy-envelope

The study in Norway has nothing to do with ME/CFS . I was looking at their new formula (for max heart rate for healthy people) as an alternative to apply 60% to, which gives me a slightly higher max to work with.

I figure that if I'm using a monitor to do some 'hard core' pacing then I need a max. number to set it at and this was all I have for the time being. And for me setting a monitor at 103 versus 108 does make enough of a difference ... whether I need to break up doing the stairs or not and whether having to take more of a break for certain routine activities.

I'm in the process of evaluating how pacing with a HR monitor is working for me...
 

lisaadele

Active Member
Interesting. I'm guessing you and I are the same age, as my numbers calculate the same. This is of course using the 60% reduction that you stated for CFS patients. I've never heard that before - where does that figure come from? It makes sense that with the PEM, we would want to maintain a lower HR; I just never heard that specific figure. Without the adjustment, the maximums would be more like 172 or 180, depending upon the method.

103 or 108, isn't really much of a difference, but in either case they seem impractically low for any kind of exercise target. My pulse is often between 88-100 just sitting on the couch. If I did any kind of exercise at all, even just walking, taking a shower, doing the dishes, having sex, etc., my heart rate would exceed these calculated maximum heart rates in, well, a heart beat.

When I was healthy, my resting heart rate was in the low 60's and my rate during moderate to intense exercise was easily 150 to 160 and could easily be as high as 180 under really intense exercise.

If my goal is to never exceed 108, I couldn't really do anything...
This is my challenge right now - regular activities can easily set it off.

If I'm mindful and breathe better and move slower with pauses I can keep it in range. As soon as I don't do these things it shoots up. I feel like I'm a geriatric patient when I have it on.

The idea is that pacing with the monitor and keeping my heart rate down will help me to improve over time. But I am not sure how realistic this is to do for me. I live in a busy household and I find it hard to control the environment and myself.
 

lisaadele

Active Member
Now I'm confused... How are most people with cfs going to be around 130 ish?

Example - for me based on the recommended 60%

(220 - 49) * .6 = 103

Am I missing something?
 

lisaadele

Active Member
@IrisRV had a good post in the thread
An Overview of Pacing and the Energy Envelope Hypothesis Why Pacing is Important for Getting Better

Unfortunately I don't know how to link that here... she included a big table along with her excellent discussion about finding the target heart rate for pacing.

I was only interested in showing the study out of Norway on this as well!



 

Remy

Administrator
Now I'm confused... How are most people with cfs going to be around 130 ish?

Example - for me based on the recommended 60%

(220 - 49) * .6 = 103

Am I missing something?
Well, age is a little bit of the difference and my crap math skills feature too. :)

My HRmax is 185 and 60-70% of that is 111-130. So maybe I was just trying to make myself feel better about being between 125-135 during my walks!
 

lisaadele

Active Member
Well, age is a little bit of the difference and my crap math skills feature too. :)

My HRmax is 185 and 60-70% of that is 111-130. So maybe I was just trying to make myself feel better about being between 125-135 during my walks!
That makes sense.... less confused now..... just feeling old :)
 

Cort

Founder of Health Rising and Phoenix Rising
Staff member
@IrisRV had a good post in the thread
An Overview of Pacing and the Energy Envelope Hypothesis Why Pacing is Important for Getting Better

Unfortunately I don't know how to link that here... she included a big table along with her excellent discussion about finding the target heart rate for pacing.

I was only interested in showing the study out of Norway on this as well!
That is an excellent post - you can find it here -http://www.healthrising.org/forums/threads/an-overview-of-pacing-and-the-energy-envelope-hypothesis.3958/#post-15042
 
Age based formula

Your estimated maximum heart rate is 220 minus your age. In order to get your target heart rate zones you need to do the following calculations:
  • Maximum heart rate * 0.6
  • Maximum heart rate * 0.7
  • Maximum heart rate * 0.8
Your heart rate zones are:
  • Zone 1: Heart rate between Maximum heart rate * 0.6 and Maximum heart rate * 0.7
  • Zone 2: Heart rate between Maximum heart rate * 0.7 and Maximum heart rate * 0.8
  • Zone 3: More than Maximum heart rate * 0.8
Example:
Jimmy is 30 years old and his estimated maximum heart rate is 220-30=190.
  • Maximum heart rate * 0.6 = 190 * 0.6 =114
  • Maximum heart rate * 0.7 = 190 * 0.7 =133
  • Maximum heart rate * 0.8 = 190 * 0.8 = 152
Jimmy’s heart rate zones:
  • Zone 1: 114 – 133
  • Zone 2: 133 – 152
  • Zone 3: more than 152
 

Get Our Free ME/CFS and FM Blog!



Forum Tips

Support Our Work

DO IT MONTHLY

HEALTH RISING IS NOT A 501 (c) 3 NON-PROFIT

Shopping on Amazon.com For HR

Latest Resources

Top