Choline on the Brain? A Guide to Choline in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
http://phoenixrising.me/research-2/the-brain-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-mecfs/choline-on-the-brain-a-guide-to-choline-in-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-by-cort-johnson-aug-2005
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Anaerobic threshold calculation accurate for pacing?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle Management' started by Plum, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. Plum

    Plum Senior Member

    Messages:
    463
    Likes:
    344
    UK
    I was hoping for some input from peoples experience. I have a heart rate monitor and have been using it for months. I calculated my anaerobic threshold from http://www.cfidsselfhelp.org/librar...our-heart-rate-to-stay-inside-energy-envelope

    "Maximum heart rate is 220 minus your age. For a person who is 50 years old, 60% of maximum heart rate is (220 - 50) x .6 = 102 beats per minute"

    Mine is 110 bpm.

    I have also seen articles about ME patients anaerobic threshold being lower than the calculated value particularly following a bad day of doing too much.

    Whilst I am having less severe symptoms, trying to stay below 110 I wonder how accurate this calculation is compared to peoples experience?

    I am wondering if aiming for a lower number is more helpful?

    (I am unable to have the actual test done which would tell me exactly what my level is).

    I am severely ill, housebound etc and struggle doing most things to stay below 100bpm. Sometimes just standing waiting for something in the kitchen puts me over 100bpm or washing my hands etc.

    Thanks in advance
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2017
    MastBCrazy and ivorin like this.
  2. Jenny

    Jenny Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes:
    521
    Dorset
    According to this, my max heart rate would be 90. Yet I'm often way above this when I've just been lying down for a few hours. And I woke at 3 am last night with a rate of
    120. It fluctuates hugely and I have no control over it.
     
    echobravo and MastBCrazy like this.
  3. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,577
    Likes:
    35,457
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    I think this is a mistake. That would make you 130 years old. Maybe this is your target heart rate using classical heart rate measures? Even that seems wrong.

    Our target heart rate seems to be a good deal lower than for the general population.

    POTS complicates this a lot.

    In any case the current path that Workwell seems to be doing is short non-aerobic exercise, aimed at range of motion and strength, and can probably be done lying down. Duration is two minutes or less.

    We really do not know how to determine target heart rates with POTS. Its more for non-POTS patients I think.
     
    ryan31337 likes this.
  4. Ravn

    Ravn

    Messages:
    78
    Likes:
    121
    New Zealand
    The calculation you're using is meant as a starting estimate. After that it comes down to trial and error (doesn't everything in ME?). Some people get away with higher, others need to go lower. Some people actually work on staying under resting HR+10 or 20%, which can be quite a bit lower than AT.
    As the post above points out, POTS can complicate matters. I, for one, simply cannot stay under AT when first getting up in the morning or after a rest. It's stand up - tachy, sit down until HR settled, stand up - slightly less tachy, sit down until HR settled, repeat several times. The trick for me seems to be not to stay over AT for more than a minute or so. I can't deny it's highly exasperating doing things in 1-minute bursts...
    Like you I'm housebound and struggling with keeping HR down but I do see a benefit from at least trying. I've been able to eliminate or adapt the worst activities so I now rarely get over a HR115 or so, and that only briefly, before HR150 was common. I still crash, far too often, but the crashes don't last as long as they used to and that sure is worth having!
    There's a good Facebook group called something like Pacing with heart rate monitor or similar with some very knowledgable and helpful folks in it. They also seem to rate the Workwell Foundation principles very highly.
     
    Learner1 and Plum like this.
  5. Jenny

    Jenny Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,365
    Likes:
    521
    Dorset

    I was using the formula in Plum's post:

    My age is 67

    220-67 = 153
    153x0.6=91.8
     
  6. Plum

    Plum Senior Member

    Messages:
    463
    Likes:
    344
    UK
    Thank you very much for your suggestions - I wasn't aware of the FB group. I have POTS too. What I detailed above was more along the lines of a 'good' day. If I stuck to anaerobic threshold on bad POTS days I wouldn't eat...or move... or go pee... :)
     
    Ravn and Learner1 like this.
  7. rodgergrummidge

    rodgergrummidge Senior Member

    Messages:
    109
    Likes:
    222
    Not exactly rocket science...... Its just 60% of the age-adjusted maximum heart rate. And, if it causes PEM, reduce it further. And if it still causes PEM, reduce it even further. And keep on reducing until there is no PEM. Its very much a trial and error approach.
     
  8. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,577
    Likes:
    35,457
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Ahh. This is not maximal heart rate though, but target heart rate. Your maximal is 153. Over that might be dangerous.
     
  9. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,577
    Likes:
    35,457
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Two day CPET data can give you a target heart rate by direct measurement, but even that might need to be adjusted as severity fluctuates.
     
    rodgergrummidge and Plum like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page