More on My Heart Rate

Today is Monday. Over the weekend, I felt I was possibly about to catch a cold, so I decided to limit my effort this morning to walking rather than running.

I strapped on my heart rate monitor anyhow, and I was a bit surprised. I found that my heart rate, based on an estimated maximum of 160 beats per minute at my age (nearly 58), would easily stay in the 70 percent (112 bpm) to 85 percent (136 bpm) range as I walked.

In fact, for the most part, it was easy to keep it in the 75 percent (120 bpm) to 80 percent (128 bpm) range. All I had to do was step up the effort a wee bit on level or (especially) downhill stretches and then take it real, real easy on uphills.

If I relaxed when I wasn't going uphill, my heart rate would drop to 116-118 (just over 70%), so I'd speed up and/or take longer strides and/or take "springier" strides. My HR would quickly climb well above 120 (75%) again.

If I didn't relax when I was going uphill, my HR would climb well past 128 (80%) to 136 (85%) or even in excess of 140 (approaching 90% of maximum).

This implies I'm getting a perfectly fine "training effect" from walking alone, as long as I move right along when not going uphill. And when walking uphill, even slowly, I'm getting just as much of a cardio workout as when I jog on level ground.

The authorities generally say keeping your HR above 60% of maximum for 30+ minutes qualifies as an aerobic workout. Some even say a 50% HR is enough. I don't exactly buy that, since my HR is almost always at 50% (80 bpm) or higher.

Anyhow ... I wonder if my heart is less efficient than "most" hearts. A few years ago, I had chest pain and was given a stress test. It turned out my chest pain was from something other than heart trouble, but I was told that my heart had something odd about the timing of its beat. As I understood it, either the diastolic or the systolic phase (I forget which) was noticeably late. The doctor said it was not terribly unusual, and nothing to worry about.

Yet I wonder. If my heart rhythm is abnormal, doesn't that imply my heart is not as efficient as most? For if the average heart could be made more efficient by altering its rhythm to be more like mine, wouldn't evolution have arranged for that?

In childhood, I never felt I could run as hard or as long as my playmates. Always too easily winded, and all that.

When I was in school, I used to flunk the running portion of physical fitness tests. Couldn't keep up the pace.

I'm contemplating seeing a cardiologist to find out more.

But I think the bottom line might be: OK, maybe my heart is below average in efficiency. All the more reason for me to work out, since that will improve my heart's efficiency, just as it does for a "normal" heart.

Or, the bottom line might be: My heart's odd beat has little to do with its efficiency. Get out there and get in shape!

Either way, I still have to work out!

It's just that I seem to be able to get a workout at 70-80% of maximum HR without running at all ... which doesn't really thrill me. I want to run!