Very High Max Heart Rate

Interested in what can be learned, if anything from monitoring my HR during runs.

I am 61 years old, 73.5kg 179cm / 162lbs 5' 10.5", running about two 5k sessions a week for the last year until a tennis injury knocked me off my feet (torn gastrocnemius and 2 fractures on front of shin).

My resting heart rate is between 50 and 59 depending on how much sleep and stress level.  For the last 10 years I have been using 188 as my max HR based on a conconi treadmill test estimation.

Before the injury my maximum exercise HR was usually between 170 to 178:

 Before Injury: Max exercise HR of 170 during weekly 5k run

Today I started running again again (1k walk, 1k run, 2k walk, 1k run, 0.5k cool down walk) and noticed that my HR was up higher than previously seen.  It was a bit hotter today at 95 deg. F, but I drank continuously and felt very good during and after the run.

Two and half months later:  Maximum exercise HR of 183 and 186 during 1k intervals

I was thinking that I was running my 5k at around 90% of my maxHR, but today's run would seem to indicate that my MaxHR is actually much higher for me to be able to run at 186 for these intervals.

Anything else I can learn from these data?

The Fitness Test Result Nearly Killed Me

(repub - original site went under.)

(VO2 max estimation method comparison)

Alan McDonley, Jan. 2007

In 2006, as part of an employer sponsored fitness assessment, I chose to take a 1.5 Mile Aerobic Fitness Test. The test was described as "run or walk for 1.5 miles and time yourself. The objective is to cover the distance in the shortest time possible." When I entered my resulting time into the website calculator, I received a surprisingly poor result. After more research, I concluded the website calculator was not appropriate to the test and found validation in the fitness assessment method I had been using for the prior seven months.

Also at that time, a "negative" (no excessive risk) Bruce Protocol stress test reported I had a "mild to moderately reduced exercise tolerance". My time was 6 minutes 16 seconds, which correlates to a VO2max of 21 by the estimator:

VO2 max=14.8 - (1.379 × T) + (0.451 × T*T) - (0.012 × T*T*T)

That was an indication of "very poor" fitness for my age, and I resolved to begin exercising three times a week at a local community center.

(Note: It also seems likely that my higher than norm max heart rate caused the cardiologist to terminate the test early when I achieved 100% of the age calculated max heart rate.)

Since I had not been exercising much and was then 53 years old, I decided I should purchase a heart monitor to make sure I did not exceed the guidelines for my age. I chose to purchase a Polar F11 watch primarily because it also contained a "fitness test" function.

The F11 fitness test measures heart rate variability during a five-minute undisturbed rest lying on the floor and reports an estimate of VO2max. Before beginning my exercise program the watch estimated my VO2max at 27, which correlated to "poor". That assessment was higher than the Bruce Protocol test result, but still strong motivation for me to start exercising.

I continued to perform the F11 fitness test periodically. After the first two weeks my VO2max moved up slightly to 31. The test results remained quite constant until beginning a slow climb in the third month of exercise. By the middle of the fourth month I had entered the "good" range with a test value of 37 and the slope was looking good. At six months I was coasting along the bottom of the "very good" with a value of 42.

In the seventh and eighth months, I didn't work hard enough, skipping two whole weeks, twice in fact, and my F11 test score dropped back into the "good" range with values around 40.

When my employer again enticed me (with $150) to do a run/walk treadmill fitness test, I was excited to see if the result would correlate with my Polar F11 test results. I warmed up for a tenth of a mile at 2 mph, and then started the stopwatch and distance count. I ran at 6 mph for a short while till my heart rate was pushing 95% then backed off the speed to 4.2 mph to hold a steady 90% (150 bpm) till the 1.5 mile mark at 21 minutes even.

I rushed home to plug in my result and when I did, whoa baby, there's a problem here. The fitness assessment website calculated the VO2max for my 21 minute run/walk as 26.5 and labeled my fitness as *poor*. It appeared that the website was using a "maximal effort" VO2max estimator developed by KH Cooper. There are many Cooper tests, and several sites list the 1.5-mile Cooper estimator as:

VO2max = 3.5 + 483 / (time in minutes)

That was quite a shock. The next morning I tested myself with the Polar F11. The test estimated a VO2max value of 42, which is the bottom of the "very good" for my age.

Thanks to the Internet I was able to discover two more ways to interpret my treadmill test that correlate extremely well with my Polar F11. The first was a study by Brigham Young University of telling subjects to run, walk, or jog "somewhat hard, at a steady pace" for 1.5 miles. By having the subjects also perform a standardized maximal graded exercise test they developed estimators for the 1.5-mile sub-maximal of:

VO2 max = 65.404 + 7.707 x gender (1 = male; 0 =female) - 0.159 x body mass (kg) - 0.843 x elapsed exercise time (min; walking, jogging or running).

VO2 max = 100.162 +/- 7.301 x gender (1 = male; 0 =female) - 0.164 x body mass (kg) - 1.273 x elapsed exercise time -0.156 x exercise heart rate

Using the first estimator, my 1.5-mile test would indicate a VO2max of 42, exactly the value of my Polar F11 test.

Using the second formula, (with a +7.301 male coefficient), gives a value of 43. (The formula is taken from the abstract citation which had a plus/minus in front of the gender coefficient. Using the minus coefficient yielded values which did not agree with their non-heart-rate estimator, while the plus coefficient did.)

Next I found the Rockport Walking Fitness Test. This is a 1-mile sub-maximal walking test with instructions "Walk 1 mile as fast as possible". The estimator for this test is:

VO2max = 132.853 - (0.0769 × Weight in lbs.) - (0.3877 × Age) + (6.315 × Gender: 1=male, 0=female) - (3.2649 × Time) - (0.1565 × Heart rate)

Since I "walked" at a steady 4.2mph at 150 bpm for most of my 1.5-mile test, I can use 14 minutes (21min * 1/1.5), which results in a VO2max estimation of 43, again close to the Polar F11 heart-rate variability test value.

As a result of the "shock" and the further research, I had increased confidence in the Polar F11 VO2max estimation and felt that I could use the watch to measure the results of my exercise program. I felt "very good" about my exercise program results, although I didn't actually believe that I had achieved "very good" fitness!

Update: June 2007 - I've been doing the C25k (couch to 5k in 9 weeks) running program for the last five months now. I've discovered by doing a running Conconi test that my HRmax is 20 bpm higher than age predicted, so that I can allow my heart rate to go over 150. I still am no where near the "average" but I am now able to continue with the program. I am able to run 8 minutes at a 17:00 mile pace (3.5mph) and my heart rate levels off around 160.

Update: Aug 2014 - I started the C25K again a year ago, and have been running one or two 36-36 minute 5k sessions each week with an average heart rate around 173 and a max exercise heart rate of 178.  I'm still slow (47% age graded) but I am enjoying my runs.  Interestingly I have run some 1k segments at 186 bpm and felt great during and after, so I'm now thinking my max heart rate might be more than the 188 I have been using for zone calcs.

© Alan McDonley 2007 All rights reserved.

References:

a)     Bruce Protocol VO2max estimator:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/bruce.htm

b)     Cooper 1.5-mile VO2max estimators:
http://www.exrx.net/Calculators/OneAndHalf.html

c)     BYU 1.5-mile sub maximal VO2max estimator:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11926486&dopt=Abstract

d)     Rockport Walking Fitness Test VO2max estimator:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/rockport.htm

e)    Polar F11 Heart Rate Variability:
http://www.heartratemonitor.co.uk/research.html

Coffee At Home In Israel

In America, I had been grinding ($6 a pound)  Dunkin Donuts Original beans in a Krups burr grinder, and brewing three to four cups of supermarket brand purified water with  4-5 tablespoon scoops of grounds in a small 4-cup Cusinart drip coffee maker. 

I would put one teaspoon of sugar and a small amount of Land-O-Lakes "Half and Half" to get what the Dunkin shops call "Dark" coffee.  This gave a very smooth, thick feeling coffee that was not strong, not "woody", not creamy, and not sweet.  (I'm quite sure many would call it "not coffee".)

I brought several bags of these beans and a bag or two ground to Israel with a Melitta #4 drip cone and 8 cup thermal carafe, and began searching for an inexpensive 220 volt burr grinder.  

Israeli home coffee is most often either "Nes" (Nescafe or Elite) instant, or in a growing trend from a Nespresso machine.  There are a few folks that brew (strong) coffee in an ArcoSteel or Bialetti moka pot with Elite "Turki", and apparently some folks are using "universal" ground Italian coffee, as Mauro, LavAzza, and Illy are available in all the supermarkets (at $15-$25 a pound!).

While there are many American brands here in Israel, I have not found Land-O-Lakes and their Half-and-Half, nor any similar tasting coffee creamer.

The day after arriving to Israel, I began brewing from my pre-ground Dunkin coffee each morning with three and a half tablespoon size scoops of coffee to "three cups" (18 oz - 530 ml) of Kiryat Yam tap water boiled in the kum-kum and slowly poured over the grounds.  After adding about 1/2 teaspoon of sugar and a tiny bit of 3% milk I had a quite thin feeling imitation of our morning American coffee.

My search for an inexpensive burr grinder led me to discover that coffee specialty stores in Israel do not usually stock "coffee grinders", only espresso grinders which start around $225.  Blade type coffee grinders are available in the supermarkets.  Kedmagift.co.il does list both a Severin and a Gaggia burr grinder on their website at around 490 shekels ($137).  None of their local shops had them in stock, and I didn't really want to pay over $75-$80.  Coffee-express.co.il does not show any of these less inexpensive grinders.

Turning online to the "Amazon of Israel", zap.co.il I found a Sol-Exclusive burr grinder to be available, which had no reviews and no representation on the manufacturer's website.  

Taking the risk I ordered online (fullfilled by olsale.co.il).  Zap.co.il listed it available from several sources at "267-315 shekels" ($74-$88) and after signing up at the only name I recognized, olsale,  I understood that I would be making an offer/bid, so the displayed "price" was simply advertising.  I bid the 199 minimum, then with the aid of Google Translate suggesting I raise my bid, a bid of 260 (299 total with shipping) was finally accepted.  Ten days later my doorbell rang at 8:30 AM and I had my "inexpensive" burr grinder.

The grinder has two safety switches, and I discovered one of them was so determined to keep me safe that the grinder would not function.  With a little re-engineering I was able to start testing with beans.

The finest setting is no where near as fine as my Krups grinder was able to spit out, and the improved consistency that burr grinders have over blade grinders is also missing.  

The grinder is imported from Germany and does evidence some "German Design", but the quality control engineer must have had the day off when they assembled my grinder.

Even though I washed the grinder thoroughly, and ran a "coat the surfaces" grind, I tossed all the test grinds to be sure I wouldn't be tasting plasticizers or soap in the coffee. 

Flashback: Having run out of ground Dunkin coffee before the grinder arrived, I picked up a 250 gram brick of LavAzza Qualita Rossa universal ground for 33.55 shekels ($9.50, equivalent to $17 a pound) at the supermarket.

I chose this coffee because it purports to be medium dark and claims to be good for everything from drip to moka pot to true espresso machines.  It is a blend of 30% Robusta and 70% Arabica, which did not mean anything to me at the time.  

Later I read up on the strengths and weaknesses of these two beans and all 161 Amazon reviews of this coffee,  the 356 reviews of the LavAzza Crema e Gusto, and reviews of Mauro coffee as it is the only Italian coffee I found offered on (one)  the Israeli coffee specialty websites.  I was already familiar with the taste of Illy coffee having had an Illy espresso machine in America.

My wife and I have been pleasantly surprised with this LavAzza Qualita Rossa coffee actually.  Three tablespoon size scoops of the (quite fine) ground coffee to the "three cups" of tap water, boiled in the kum-kum and very slowly poured into the grounds results in a darker-than-Dunkin, more flavorful than Dunkin, while every bit as smooth as Dunkin coffee.  (The water takes much longer to pass through the LavAzza grounds than through the pre-ground Dunkin coffee.)  

Back to the future:  Now that I have a grinder and can go back to drinking Dunkin Donuts' coffee, I decided to check the directions on the bag:  2 scoops for every 6 oz. of water.   

A test brew with this ratio put 6 scoops of fresh ground coffee to "three cups" of boiled water, again poured slowly over the grounds in the Melitta.  



This resulted in a slightly darker, astringent coffee that is totally unpleasant.  





This morning I made coffee with my traditional 3.5 scoops of freshly ground Dunkin beans to 3 cups of water.  It tasted like weakly flavored water.    

Our taste buds are demanding the LavAzza Qualita Rossa for tomorrow's morning coffee.  

(I am also searching for a Bialetti Brikka "4-cup" special technology moka pot, so this tale is probably not complete yet.)

My Most Recent Demise

My first Internet life and death: GeoCities.com  1995-2009 - Yahoo bought and then shut down free hosting.


False Alarm: My most recent demise: koolhost.com 2009-2011 - Three good years of free hosting was "off the air" for a day or so.



Still extant Internet presences:
   ( Welcome Virtual Visitor - koolhost.com )  dead Aug 2014
    From The Herd - These ramblings on Blogspot 2011-present
    ... - Google+  2011-2019
    Robot Carl - Vimeo

    A Curious AGI  



and webmaster for:
   Retired Site:  Gold Coast Archers USA Archery Corner  - Google Sites
    Retired Site: Archery Chat Bot - Pandorabots.com

    Rugwarrior Robot Yahoo Group - Started in 2000, till shutdown in 2020



(I still can't bring myself to sign up for Facebook.  I must have Antiestablishmentarianism. )

Real Estate Capitalism Exposed - CNN as a co-conspirator

"According to Fiserv (FISV), a financial analytics company, home values are expected to fall another 3.6% by next June, pushing them to a new low of 35% below the peak reached in early 2006"
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/31/real_estate/home_prices/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2

Boy, I trust that company... Let's "bring it all home", so to speak.  According to Zillow.com my home in early 2006 was worth 203% of what I paid in 2001;  That's the peak to use for a reference. 

According to the CNN article "The first post-bubble bottom was hit in 2009, when prices fell to 31% below peak."  Zillow shows my home was 58% below the peak (and 14% below what I paid for it).

In Aug 2011, Zillow showed my home at 59% below the peak which was then 16% below what I purchased it for 10 years prior.

Who cares about % below peak anyway.  That is only a measure of a "missed opportunity".  What they are really saying is "You missed an opportunity to sell your home in 2006 at a 100% profit (or 700% profit over investment at that point), live in an apartment for three years, then buy your home back for cash and have 50% left to upgrade the appliances, paint and carpets, and pay two real estate commissions, pay the title company twice, pay the mortgage closing cost twice, pay the state tax stamps twice.  *Everyone makes out like a bandit with no losers*." 

Thanks for rubbing it in Fiserv and CNN.  So I missed an opportunity to put $250k in my pocket at the expense of some schmuck you duped into buying a home at the peak of a boom...(The folks I sold to would have actually lost $200K, but hey, its a free market, right?  We would have felt we "earned" that  money. ) 

I'm actually starting to feel better already.  I didn't lose anything and I didn't help the real estate tycoons destroy the savings, credit rating, and happiness of someone else. 

Maybe, I should get a double tax credit - I lost (missed out on - same thing) $200K on my investment, and I did a charitable thing by not stealing some bloke's $200K.  All the government will do is waste my tax dollars building roads and bridges anyway - why shouldn't I get a tax break?

Thanks for trying to make me feel bad, CNN.

One Vote?

I've heard "One person - One Vote" for many years, but since the Supreme Court gave corporations the unlimited right to contribute to political campaigns, perhaps it should also be said "One CEO - More Than One Vote"

Please explain the end of Asimov: "Foundation and Earth"

I just finished F&E today and am very disturbed and confused by the ending. All along the "future history", the reader experiences various social (psycho) mechanisms used by rulers, groups, (and a few "isolates"), and shown the benefits, problems, and ultimately the demise of each mechanism.

It seemed to me that over and over, the individual thinking of Trevize had demonstrated the holes in a unified galaxy under Gaian social order, so I don't understand how Trevize just gives into this Daneel as the correct (or even best) path for the future. I was not convinced. I know he wanted someone else to hold the responsibility for "humanity", but to hand it over to Daneel?

The extolled instincts of Trevize, were usually very much in line with my feelings (encouraged by the mind of Asimov?), but at the end my instincts were not assuaged, while it seemed Trevize was at peace with his delivery of the future to Daneel and the Gaian Galaxia which would obliterate the individual from humanity and remove the uncertainty caused by individual thought.

Is this the intention? That I should be left wanting? It seems every prior book was quite complete, and this one tried with the dicussion to wrap everything up, but either I totally missed the point, or the point was indeed to leave me confused (and quite disturbed.)

Can anyone point me to any discussions of the end with I. Asimov, the master or my future sanity? Am I accursed to a "search for [my] Earth"?