Apple watch, 215 Max HR recorded

[Julien]

You have your move goal at 500? I remember you said you run a lot. I currently have my move goal at 820, and I think it's too high. When I first got my watch I was in Memphis for a few days and so I was walking everywhere and I was meeting the goal. But now I'm back to my regular schedule and even after the gym, I'm sitting at 562 right now. Pretty sure I'd have to go run or go to the gym again in order to meet that goal.

Sorry for being a little off-topic.

Yes, I have it at 500 kcal. It tries to get me to up it each week but I leave it the same. One reason is on Sunday's I take off except for a good core workout and I struggle to burn 500 kcal that day. I'm obsessive about recored keeping and have spreadsheets going back to 2004 on every cardio workout. I run a fair amount (long run on weekend), weight train 5x and do cardio machines a couple of times a week (I need to ride my bike but dislike riding some and scared of texting drivers). Here is my workout schedule to date.

 

[Trent0341]

I have mine at 620 right now although most days Im 8-900+ (sitting at 980 right now) but on my off days 620 can be difficult.

----------

When I was first in college I had to take physical education. I was in reasonably decent shape (5' 10", 175lbs) but my heart rate was in the same range as yours. Professor (if you could even call them that) in the lab (aka the gym) said that I should go to the doctor. Luckily I was still on my parents' insurance and they ran all these tests and echocardiogram stress test and nothing at all was wrong with my heart. They said I just have an abnormally high heart rate. I also have an above average resting heart rate and occasional palpitations. If you have good insurance you should go get it checked out. Otherwise it could cost quite a bit!

Nowadays I'm a little overweight and borderline hypertension. I'm excited to use the Apple Watch to get in better shape. I've been slowly losing some weight counting my steps using my iPhone but hope the Apple Watch will keep me on track even more. I hope future versions or bands allow blood pressure monitoring as it runs in my family. As for the heart sensor, there were comparisons made online of it and a medical chest-strap monitor and it seemed to match those results 99% so it should be pretty accurate.

My stats from the last doctor visit:
110/60 BP
51 HR
95% oxygen levels

So my resting HR isn't high. The good part is that I do have good insurance so I will run these by the doctor at the next appointment and see what he has to say.

----------

Yes, I have it at 500 kcal. It tries to get me to up it each week but I leave it the same. One reason is on Sunday's I take off except for a good core workout and I struggle to burn 500 kcal that day. I'm obsessive about recored keeping and have spreadsheets going back to 2004 on every cardio workout. I run a fair amount (long run on weekend), weight train 5x and do cardio machines a couple of times a week (I need to ride my bike but dislike riding some and scared of texting drivers). Here is my workout schedule to date.

I too keep a spreadsheet (on just about everything actually). I just started my health spreadsheet (sleep, HRs, etc.).

 

[mistertomlinson]

You *******s. I was feeling pretty good about my 178bpm average heart rate during my last run. I've been trying to get back into running and thought that was pretty damn good considering I'm 30 and my MHR is supposed to be 190.

Sad face.

 

[cosmic68]

Yes, I have it at 500 kcal. It tries to get me to up it each week but I leave it the same. One reason is on Sunday's I take off except for a good core workout and I struggle to burn 500 kcal that day. I'm obsessive about recored keeping and have spreadsheets going back to 2004 on every cardio workout. I run a fair amount (long run on weekend), weight train 5x and do cardio machines a couple of times a week (I need to ride my bike but dislike riding some and scared of texting drivers). Here is my workout schedule to date.

Image

What calendar is that?

 

[Julien]

What calendar is that?

Garmin Connect.

 

[Borjan]

For athletic individuals, I don't believe that in itself a heart rate above 200 is cause for concern during extended periods of high intensity activity.

Other mitigating factors of course can be warning signs.

I have a background in physiology btw. In fact, I'm using some of my old contacts to get some time on an exercise bike next week whilst hooked up to a proper ECG machine and of course wearing my watch. I just wanted to see how accurate the watch is, but I'll also let you know what my heart rate hits, I'll be aiming for maximum exertion (we used to do this test to determine when your body switches from aerobic to anaerobic... and it was killer!)

I would say I'm fairly athletic, 28, and play lots of football and badminton. When I wear my watch when playing these sports my max HR can usually be around mid 190s. But seeing a reading above 200 happens.

 

[Julien]

For athletic individuals, I don't believe that in itself a heart rate above 200 is cause for concern during extended periods of high intensity activity.....

The OP is 36 and maximal HR is directly related to your age. So 200 (and especially 215) would be abnormally high and indicate some type of condition. However it has been all but determined the readings were an anomaly.

 

[rocknblogger]

I’m trying to determine if this is even possible and if there are any health implication to this.

<snip>
Image

I asked my wife about this who is a cardiac professional.

There's a formula to find your target heart rate.

220 minus your age Gives you your max heart rate.
Multiply by That number by 70% (or 0.7).
Multiply that number by 85% (.85) To get your minimum target heart rate.

She said there's no way that your heart rate should be anywhere near 200 much less over 200, unless of course there's a cardiac issue you are not aware of.

This is from the Mayo clinic and says it better than I did

Subtract your age from 220 to get your maximum heart rate.
Multiple that number by 0.7 (70 percent) to determine the lower end of your target heart rate zone.
Multiply your maximum heart rate by 0.85 (85 percent) to determine the upper end of your target heart rate zone.
For example, say your age is 45 and you want to figure out your target heart rate zone for vigorous intensity exercise. Subtract 45 from 220 to get 175 — this is your maximum heart rate. To get the lower end of your target zone, multiply 175 by 0.7 to get 123. To get the higher end, multiply 175 by 0.85 to get 149. So your target heart rate zone for vigorous exercise intensity is 123 to 149 beats per minute.

You can find further reading here regarding exercise and hear rate.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/in-depth/exercise-intensity/art-20046887?pg=2

----------

For athletic individuals, I don't believe that in itself a heart rate above 200 is cause for concern during extended periods of high intensity activity.

Other mitigating factors of course can be warning signs.

I have a background in physiology btw. In fact, I'm using some of my old contacts to get some time on an exercise bike next week whilst hooked up to a proper ECG machine and of course wearing my watch. I just wanted to see how accurate the watch is, but I'll also let you know what my heart rate hits, I'll be aiming for maximum exertion (we used to do this test to determine when your body switches from aerobic to anaerobic... and it was killer!)

I would say I'm fairly athletic, 28, and play lots of football and badminton. When I wear my watch when playing these sports my HR can usually be around mid 190s. But seeing a reading above 200 happens.

You would be wrong in your assumptions. The better shape you're in the lower you're heart rate should be regardless of how intense your workout is. I thought the same thing you did until my wife explained it to me.

 

[Julien]

I asked my wife about this who is a cardiac professional.

There's a formula to find your target heart rate.

220 minus your age Gives you your max heart rate.
Multiply by That number by 70% (or 0.7).
Multiply that number by 85% (.85) To get your minimum target heart rate....

That is why I posted as good site link for MHR calculations earlier in this thread.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

 

[Borjan]

This paper was published in 1968, so it is a little old. But it quite nicely shows how much variability there is in the population.

The effect of age and athletic training on the maximal heart rate during muscular exercise

Yes there are trends for the more trained athletes to have lower max heart rates. But my point is that there is quite a lot of variability.

As I said before, there are mitigating factors that can be cause for concern, but if you just hear that someone can have a max heart rate of 200 does not imply a heart problem in itself.

 

[mostman]

See if you can can catch one when it happens - then use the old school method to confirm. I mean, you do have a stop watch on your arm.

 

[cosmic68]

Garmin Connect.

You are admirably active.

 

[Borjan]

And here is a much more recent study, looking at a few thousand subjects.

Age-predicted maximal heart rate in healthy subjects: The HUNT Fitness Study

"Maximal heart rate (HRmax) declines substantially with age, but the magnitude and possible modifying effect of gender, body composition, and physical activity are not fully established. The present study examined the relationship between HRmax and age in 3320 healthy men and women within a wide age range using data from the HUNT Fitness Study (2007–2008). Subjects were included if a maximal effort could be verified during a maximal exercise test. General linear modeling was used to determine the effect of age on HRmax. Subsequently, the effects of gender, body mass index (BMI), physical activity status, and maximal oxygen uptake were examined. Mean predicted HRmax by three former prediction formulas were compared with measured HRmax within 10-year age groups. HRmax was univariately explained by the formula 211 − 0.64·age (SEE, 10.8), and we found no evidence of interaction with gender, physical activity, VO2max level, or BMI groups. There were only minor age-adjusted differences in HRmax between these groups. Previously suggested prediction equations underestimated measured HRmax in subjects older than 30 years. HRmax predicted by age alone may be practically convenient for various groups, although a standard error of 10.8 beats/min must be taken into account. HRmax in healthy, older subjects and women were higher than previously reported."

Using 220-age is flawed, but merely used to simplify the process for the everyday public. You can see not only are there more accurate formula out there, but they also explicitly state that there is a margin of error, here 10.8 BPM.

So plugging in an age of 36 we get = 211 - (0.64*26) = 187.96 +/- 10.8. This puts you very close to the 200 mark, and again this standard error is not like some sort of magical barrier that can never be broken.

Just look at the spread of the data!

 

[John6Plus]

You are admirably active.

I personally thought it was depressing.

I biked yesterday. Ran the day before that. Had a giant sundae the day before that, thought "I should go running" the day before that...

 

[Donoban]

Just check with "that dude" and all seems fine to me. "That dude" did say of all his arms it is the weakest, least coordinated and least favorite. On the plus side "that dude" said he doesn't wipe his but with it.



Here is a pic of "that dude's" same arm sans Watch from another angle.

Image

Oh lawd... Hey brah, I'm gonna flex hard, can you snap a pic for me?

Keen to see the abs next man.

Ps, do you have a boyfriend?

 

[rocknblogger]

That is why I posted as good site link for MHR calculations earlier in this thread.

http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

Good one! I missed it while reading all the replies

 

[Trent0341]

Some great discussion on HR.... Thanks to everyone who has contributed.

So I received my Wahoo Tickr X yesterday and went on a short run. Currently I'm trying Mark Allen's method of training where I essentially try to stay under a certain HR (144 in my case - keeping my exercise aerobic).

What I observed was interesting. Most of the time the watch and Tickr were within a few beats of each other. However, occasionally the watch would spike while the ticker would not. I observed them 18 bpm apart at one point. The Tickr had me at 140 while the AW had me at 158. These jumps happened several times and lasted any where from a couple of seconds up to about thirty seconds. I run a very hilly route but the jumps did not correspond with anything leading me to believe that it was an error on the watches part. The overall average for the Tickr was 6bpm less than the AW over a 30 minute run.

As a side note I had the watch tight and approximately 1 inch above the wrist bone as it should be.

I think my next course of action is to run a max HR test with both running and compare the results.

A final side note... taking the maximum variation of 18 bpm and subtracting that from the formula Borjan mentioned would put my HR during my all out run at 197 (or exactly what his math said). Certainly not scientific by any means but I'm really leaning towards these high readings just being AW errors.

I'll post more after doing some high intensity runs with the Tickr

 

[kevroc]

I'll post more after doing some high intensity runs with the Tickr

Well, FWIW, you can't beat a chest strap for accuracy, expecting the AW or any optical wrist sensor to do it is a pipe dream at this point. I know some people might swear by it, but it's just not reliable enough. But the more important question is "how important" is it to know your HR on a minute by minute basis. If you are trying to achieve specific exercise goals, it's probably important, but for most of the AW crowd, it's probably not and they probably did a pretty good job for their target market.

You can also pair a bluetooth chest strap to the apple watch, that's the best scenario. You still can use the watch but you get accurate HR as well.

I'm 50 and my Max HR is 199. I hit it a couple of times a week, has nothing to do with your ability or how good of shape your in. The 220 - your age is a general formula to follow in the absence of anything else, it's not a guideline.

 

[Julien]

You are admirably active.

...or obsessively sick.

----------

....Keen to see the abs next man....

I don't just have a 6 pack, I have a full size keg.

 

[Trent0341]

Well, FWIW, you can't beat a chest strap for accuracy, expecting the AW or any optical wrist sensor to do it is a pipe dream at this point. I know some people might swear by it, but it's just not reliable enough. But the more important question is "how important" is it to know your HR on a minute by minute basis. If you are trying to achieve specific exercise goals, it's probably important, but for most of the AW crowd, it's probably not and they probably did a pretty good job for their target market.

It is, unfortunately, not reliable enough for what I am trying to do. I do need constant (accurate) updates for my training. I do agree that they did a good job for their target market and even for most of my needs.

You can also pair a bluetooth chest strap to the apple watch, that's the best scenario. You still can use the watch but you get accurate HR as well.

Unless you're having better luck than me, the third party apps in this category (specifically nike) have to many issues right now. A better app for the watch that will display my HR (from the Tickr) would be something I'd be interested in. I'm open to suggestions. I can't even get nike + to display my HR on the AW.

I'm 50 and my Max HR is 199. I hit it a couple of times a week, has nothing to do with your ability or how good of shape your in. The 220 - your age is a general formula to follow in the absence of anything else, it's not a guideline.

I'm aware that your max HR having nothing to do with ability, however, it is important to know this for HR training. Regardless, my personality always trends towards the obsessive so this is more curiosity driven at this point probably than anything else.

 

[x-evil-x]

My resting heart rate is 35-38 on average. Bodybuilding for 10 years now I'd say I'm an elite athlete. I've never gone much past my 80% as I don't see the need. For hiit training I'm usually in the 150-155 range. I've never seen readings on my watch or other over 165. I wouldn't say I am typical though. More of my friends have higher heart rates and they tend to stay higher longer than mine. I can fluctuate from 150-120 pretty fast when I do hiit cardio I do sprints every 30-40 seconds.

 

[Julien]

....I think my next course of action is to run a max HR test with both running and compare the results.....

Are you going to get a sports stress test or just do it on your own?

Also if new to HR straps it is good to use an electrode gel (used this for years) or you can use liquid hand soap (great backup), glycerin, wet the strap or good old spit (the backup's backup). Applying will help avoid HR reading spikes at the beginning of a workout.

 

[kevroc]

It is, unfortunately, not reliable enough for what I am trying to do. I do need constant (accurate) updates for my training. I do agree that they did a good job for their target market and even for most of my needs.


Unless you're having better luck than me, the third party apps in this category (specifically nike) have to many issues right now. A better app for the watch that will display my HR (from the Tickr) would be something I'd be interested in. I'm open to suggestions. I can't even get nike + to display my HR on the AW.

I've always used a dedicated fitness watch. Mostly Garmin and Polar over the years. I honestly wouldn't settle for anything on the iPhone at this point. When I'm tired, sweaty, the sun is glaring, I'm hours into it, the last thing I'm going to "fuss" with is my phone or an app. I just want to glance at my watch to see the metrics I need to see. Big numbers, big easy to press buttons, lots of data pages for information, you can't really beat it.

The watch is only intriguing from a gadget geek perspective, but I wouldn't rely on it for serious use. Just the battery life alone wouldn't be able to handle most of my workouts.

With most of the high-end Garmin's and Polar's now incorporating activity (step) tracking, they make a lot more sense to wear 24x7.

 

[Trent0341]

Are you going to get a sports stress test or just do it on your own?

Also if new to HR straps it is good to use an electrode gel (used this for years) or you can use liquid hand soap (great backup), glycerin, wet the strap or good old spit (the backup's backup). Applying will help avoid HR reading spikes at the beginning of a workout.

I am planning on doing it myself at this point. Anything over 200 and I'll probably quit but honestly I'm not expecting it to be based on the two workouts I've had so far with the Tickr. My doctors appointment isn't until July so we'll see what kind of test he orders but I'd like a sports stress test.

Thanks for the tip. I'm assuming it has something to do with conductivity.

 

[Julien]

....Thanks for the tip. I'm assuming it has something to do with conductivity.

Yes, when you start you are dry and this can cause problems. As you start to sweat you get a better connection. The problem is usually more pronounced in the winter and/or when wearing synthetic shirts.