[imnotlost]

For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate...

If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right.

Do 30 seconds high intensity, then 90 seconds low intensity (don't sit down or stand still), repeat 8 times.

Rowing and sprinting works really well.

[sometimeshuman]

Or buy one 30lb kettle bell. No running shoes, low cost, no finding space in your home, no buyer's remorse.

A swing with good form works your entire body. 100 reps once or twice a day literally takes 2-4 minutes. Do it after hitting start on the microwave.

[aqme28]

An exercise that takes 2-4 minutes is not the same as a HIIT exercise where you exhaust yourself in 30 seconds.

[encoderer]

Swing it faster.

[1letterunixname]

That's high-impact exercise a sizable fraction of people cannot do and has inherent risks of serious injury.

HIIT isn't necessarily high-impact.

[rollo]

That doesn't sound right. Even 95% of max heart rate is sustainable for a long, long time. Intervals one can only sustain for 30s are way above VO2max intensity deep in the anaerobic zone. Heart rate pretty much maxes out on those.

[plorkyeran]

90% of maximum heart rate is the start of the anaerobic zone, and maintaining it for multiple minutes requires intense training. If you think you're sustaining 95% for any sort of time then that means you've failed to measure your maximum heart rate correctly.

[sushisource]

This really isn't accurate at all. I'm in very strong aerobic shape and 95% of my max heart rate is not at all sustainable for more than a few minutes, and it is also a deeply anaerobic activity. VO2Max != max heart rate. Your heartrate @ VO2 max is typically much lower than your max heartrate. Max genuinely means max in this case, as in, literally the highest you can get your heartrate up. By definition, you are way above your VO2 max in that situation and it is not going to be sustainable for long at all.

Something like 90% approaches what you're talking about, maybe being sustainable for 15 minutes or so, but that 5% makes an enormous difference.

[rollo]

You might be right and my 95% was a bit off. But the main point is that 80-85% being sustainable for only 30s might only be the case for someone who is in absolutely terrible shape.

[m463]

It's possible you haven't calculated actual max heart rate.

From what I can tell 220-age seems to be a rough population calculation - sort of like BMI.

It is a starting point, but fit individuals increase their max heart rate and should take a stress test.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Maximum_heart_rate

[imnotlost]

Don't think about actual pulse numbers and % of pulse numbers. If you're not thinking about quitting and almost falling off the rower you're not going hard enough.

You will think of every excuse known to man to avoid doing it.

[wazoox]

Nope. A rough estimate of my old fart MHR is 169. 85% of which is 143. I run literally for several hours at this heart rate every week. The burning intensity you're talking about is at 100-110% of max HR.

[pedrosorio]

How does one determine maximum pulse rate? I do workouts where I'm constantly at 160-170 bpm for 15 minutes and my lungs aren't burning nor am I about to collapse (aged mid-30s, if that matters)

[nradov]

Here are a few simple field tests you can perform to measure maximum running heart rate.

https://marathonhandbook.com/how-to-calculate-max-heart-rate...

Note that wearable fitness trackers that use wrist optical heart rate sensors often don't give accurate readings on such tests so it's best to add a chest heart rate sensor.

[m463]

carefully...

"Since HRmax varies by individual, the most accurate way of measuring any single person's HRmax is via a cardiac stress test. In this test, a person is subjected to controlled physiologic stress (generally by treadmill or bicycle ergometer) while being monitored by an electrocardiogram (ECG). The intensity of exercise is periodically increased until certain changes in heart function are detected on the ECG monitor, at which point the subject is directed to stop. Typical duration of the test ranges ten to twenty minutes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate#Maximum_heart_rate

I think it might be dangerous for some people to seek out max heart rate without a doctor present.

[richiebful1]

CDC says 220 beats per minute, minus your age in years:

https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartr...

[boplicity]

If you need an accurate number, it should be measured manually. Some sports clinics can do this; measuring true VO2 Max, as well as actual max heart rate.

[pedrosorio]

I've heard that estimate before (80% would be ~150bpm for me). But then the physiological effects described by the GP don't seem right as I need to go much higher to feel anything like "my lungs burning" (maybe 190+?)

[dilyevsky]

I’m 35 and this year I had actual measured hr of 198 so that formula is bs for trained individuals

[carl_dr]

It might sound stupid but work as hard as you can and note your maximum.

I’m 180bpm-ish as a 45 year old male, I get that trying to cycle uphill as hard as I can and can sustain it for some minutes.

They say the equation is 220bpm minus your age, so you should be able to go a bit higher.

[nradov]

Age based equations for maximum heart rate are mostly bullshit. More recent research has shown that there is much less decline in maximum heart rate with age, at least for athletes with a decent level of fitness. And there is a huge amount of natural variation between individuals which is often more significant than age effects.

Maximum heart rate is also sport dependent. For an equivalent level of fitness, maximum cycling HR is often about 10bpm lower than maximum running HR. This is because running engages more muscles and doesn't restrict breathing as much.

[carl_dr]

Yeah, not saying it’s a perfect rule, just making the point that the parent’s 160-170bpm is lower than what I’d expect his max to be, using the rule of thumb a lot of people know.

(And for what it’s worth, my max heart rate is the same when cycling or running, within a small margin of error. I’ve never thought to ask anyone if it’s the same for them - I will do now!)

[pedrosorio]

> just making the point that the parent’s 160-170bpm is lower than what I’d expect his max to be

Just want to clarify, I mentioned 160-170 bpm as a regular workout I do where I do not feel anywhere near max (I have seen my heart rate get above 190 while running).

I was replying to this:

> For 80-85% of maximum pulse rate...

> If your lungs are burning and you're about to collapse after 30 seconds of activity the intensity is about right.

And saying that going at 160-170 (above 80-85% according to rule of thumb) for a prolonged period of time, I feel none of those symptoms.

[popotamonga]

For my whole life i sustain 195-200 for 1h. Im 40+ now and run a 10k a day (45mins). Even a very slow 10k (1h) i never go below 170 after the first 5 minutes.

[mrleinad]

Would swimming work as well? I can see myself doing some laps really fast that will leave me panting by the poolside after 50 mts.

[nanomonkey]

I wouldn't suggest using swimming to calculate your maximum heart rate, as you have less control over when you breath. Also, you don't want to be out of breath anywhere near water, the potential for passing out and drowning is too great.

Just put on your heart rate monitor, get warmed up, and then sprint as fast as you can until you collapse, most easily done by sprinting uphill. Note your maximum heart rate recorded.

[sportslife]

Just hill sprints will get you a better read than 220-age, but the reason, I believe, lab test build up heartrate gradually is that you don't want to test the abilities of your leg muscles to sprint and recover. Very well trained athletes will notice that they bounce between different body systems limiting their performance as the move through training periods.

[nradov]

Swimming can work as well, but only if you have good technique. I'm not a great swimmer so when I'm panting by the poolside it's because I wasn't breathing correctly, not because I was exceeding my aerobic capacity. Highly trained competitive swimmers don't have this problem.

[dilyevsky]

If you’re training regularly 80-85% is nowhere near where your lungs burn - that’s like below 165bpm for most people

[canucker2016]

80-85% max heart rate is tempo pace - people suggest it's around the pace that one can hold for one hour

[dilyevsky]

Most runners i follow on strava and myself can sustain 85% hr over entire marathon race (with nutrition). It hurts after a while but it’s quite doable

[twawaaay]

I believe running your heart at such high intensity every day isn't particularly healthy. It causes scarring of the heart tissue and possible problems as you age.

I think watching this Ted might be helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6U728AZnV0

[Retric]

5-10 minutes of high intensity exercise daily is well outside what that Ted talk was describing.

With up to 45 minutes of daily exercise you see an improvement. After that there is a period where more exercise has negligible impact and only at the extreme upper end to you see a decline. But even people running regular marathons have lower risks than couch potatoes, you need to get really extreme before it’s an issue.

[canucker2016]

those researchers from the YouTube video have amended their suggestions.

from https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a20806916/excessive-exerci... :

“First, low exercise is a much more prevalent problem for our society than is excessive exercise. Second, the maximal health benefits of exercise typically occur at quite low levels. More exercise may burn more calories and improve athletic performance, but probably does not lead to better health outcomes.

“Three, in keeping with what Ben Levine said in his Circulation Commentary in 2014, I do not believe that we should go overboard to frighten athletes who want to compete in vigorous endurance sports like marathons and triathlons.”

Lavie also pointed out two new exercise studies in JAMA Internal Medicine....

When mortality rates were adjusted for exercise levels, the researchers found the lowest rate among those who exercised about three to five times the amount recommended by federal guidelines (i.e., 150 minutes per week of moderate exercise, or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise like running). However, the increased benefit of working out three to five times more than the guidelines was modest, the researchers wrote.

More importantly to serious runners, there was no evidence of harm at ten or more times the recommended minimum.

Another JAMA Internal Medicine paper looked at mortality rates in relation to moderate vs. vigorous exercise. In other words, what’s the proof for the federal government’s guideline showing vigorous exercise is roughly twice as good per minute as moderate exercise (75 minutes vs. 150 minutes)?

The conclusion, based on an analysis of 204,000 Australians aged 45 to 75: The current federal guidelines likely underestimate the value of vigorous exercise. The Australian results showed an inverse relationship between vigorous exercise and mortality rates.