• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Anaerobic threshold calculation accurate for pacing?

Plum

Senior Member
Messages
512
Location
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:

Jenny

Senior Member
Messages
1,388
Location
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.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
According to this, my max heart rate would be 90.
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.
 

Ravn

Senior Member
Messages
147
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.
 

Jenny

Senior Member
Messages
1,388
Location
Dorset
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.


I was using the formula in Plum's post:

My age is 67

220-67 = 153
153x0.6=91.8
 

Plum

Senior Member
Messages
512
Location
UK
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.

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... :)
 

rodgergrummidge

Senior Member
Messages
124
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"
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.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
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.
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.