Maximum heart rate exceeded!!

[San Marzano]

I'm 38 years of age - by my reckoning my maximum heart rate should be 182 or thereabouts.

Last night during the Trunce my 'Garmin' recorded an average (over 4 miles) of 177 bpm and a maximum of 190bpm!

Is this safe / healthy???

Im sure the watch is going to be too acurate for £30 but nonetheless........

Thanks

[Mud]

by my reckoning my maximum heart rate should be 182 or thereabouts.

On average, averages are just average.

[shadbolt]

You're obviously still alive so where's the problem ?

[dominion]

Your perceived maximum is obviously not your actual maximum! I take it you're using the 220 - age formula which generally is not viewed as being very accurate.

[jimbob]

220-37=183. I max out at 204 and have run for nearly 5 hours at an average of 194. I'm a high revver... I've done various max tests on the treadmill and bike for university research and have now have no worries about what the HRM says. The word is that if it gets too much you'll likely pass out before doing any damage. If it feels wrong see your doc.

[San Marzano]

seems like i might be quite a 'high revver' as you put it.....thanks

[Wheeze]

Congratulations!

Those things are a useless distraction IMHO.

[Big Compass]

San
I clocked 173 at Buckden, and I am 61 and a coffin dodger, just keep going

[bestathlete]

The title of the thread provides a conundrum and also an answer to your question.

If you have exceeded your maximum then the figure you previous believed to be your maximum wasn't actually.
(As long as it was recorded for more than just a second or two and so can be relied upon not to be a blip/erroneous reading) then the new, higher figure can now be regarded as your maximum.

[Trimm Trab]

San
I clocked 173 at Buckden, and I am 61 and a coffin dodger, just keep going

Funnily enough, 173 is the highest I've ever seen my heart rate too, but I'm 28! Which again shows that 220-age thing is nigh on useless if you want to estimate your max hr for training purposes.