I Just Blew the Theory!
 

As many of you know 220-age is the common, though incorrect, designation for maximum heart rate.

I proved this on Monday, while ascending a rather steep hill on the mtn bike in low-low.

My heart rate was 168 (and I felt fine).

According to the "gospel", at almost 67yo, I should not have a MHR of over 153 (220-67).

Food for thought, folks!

Its pretty much junk science.

Good Lord, man!! You're lucky your heart didn't explode like a sausage in a microwave!!

:D

Any good fitness book (even some that are not so good) will tell you that (220 - Age) is nothing more than a guess.

Exactly my point. But so many folks treat it as gospel - I just like to mess with the theory every now and then.

I know I have read in many places that it is bunk. At 220-49 my max should be 171, but I saw 185 a few months ago... and based on how I felt, I think I was pretty close to my max.

I read in a book that described the way to really measure max heart rate... It was something like:

1) warm up

2) find a nice long steep hill

3) get to the bottom of it

4) Climb it at an ever increasing pace... start with moderate effort and increase toward sprinting.

Keep going until your vision starts to get blurred, then increase speed a little more.

Keep watching your HRM as you continue to push yourself. The last number you see before passing out is your max heart rate.

:D

...and live to talk about it! :D (And this piece of wisdom comes from a retired insurance exec who cautioned us about someone working in our yards... ;) )

Did you think your ticker would come to a screaching halt at 154 BPM? Or that some funky robot would appear next to your handlebars and begin screaming: "WARNING! WARNING! DENVER FOX! YOU ARE ABOUT TO EXCEED YOUR MAX BPM! WARNING! WARNING!"? Denver, you made me laugh this afternoon, and I needed to laugh! Thank you!:D

No matter what, you will never exceed your maximum heart rate.

-a.

This is in no way an attempt to trivialize a
serious concern, but don't you just love the
way the darned sausages will sizzle and then
start whistling gas out of one end of the thing
before they DO explode in the microwave?

Man, that analogy really brought back a vivid
memory... thanks for that!

And Denvr, "BE CAREFUL OUT THERE." Although
we could say, "YOU THE MAN!" :O)

If your heart did explode, would you die instantly or at least in a matter of seconds? If so, wouldn't that be a good way to go....riding a bicycle?

OK, enough of this MAXIMUM crap.

How come we never discuss MINIMUM heart rates?

Is there some sort of prejudice out there against minimum heart rates?

So, folks, what has you minimum heart rate been, and how successful are you in lowering your heart rate?

This does tend to bring up the subject of suspended animation.

Also, is minimum heart rate related to age. Is there some sort of formula like

MinHR = 0 + your age?

Sorry, but I don't know how to write this without a severely pedantic tone. Please, ignore the tone. We aren't all the same height but have an average height. I'm sure that someone (not me) can tell you the average age of 52 year old males in Missouri etc. That would be a starting point, just as 220-age is. It is a rule-of-thumb or spleen or something. It is a good starting point and we can all improve on it if we wish.

I am sure that resting HR is interesting just because the Dr. always checks it. Athletes like to brag about their minimum HR which is ~wake-up time. I guess that it is a useful health indicator.

Minimum heart rate is zero. All of us will achieve it eventually. A few will achieve it more than once, and for most of them, a serious whack on the chest, CPR and/or a defibrillator will be involved.

Quote:

---

I'm sure that someone (not me) can tell you the average age of 52 year old males in Missouri etc.

---

I think I can pretty accurately state that the average age of 52 year-old males in Missouri is 52.

Well, this was all supposed to be sort of "jokey." But it seems to have veered away from that. So, you want pedantic?

I can do pedantic!

Read this research article about how 220-age came to be, and the conclusion (which I quote below).

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs.doc

Here's some stuff for you to think about when you get that far:

1) Although that original method of determining max heart rate was set using non-athletic people it is in fact not a bad method. The more you exercise and obtain optimal fitness the more closely you'll find yourself meeting the numbers in that calculation.

2) People who have numbers significantly outside of those calculated have something WRONG with them, and not something right. If you're very slow to recover after an effort (say taking 10 minutes or longer for your heart rate to fall below 100 after you come to a stop) or if your heart rate is significantly above the calculation it means that the CAPACITY of your cardiovascular system is below what it should be.

Now that may not mean that anything is actually wrong with your health, but merely that you're below a fitness level. But it is something that you damn well better pay attention to.

3) Once you obtain the level of fitness you should have as an endurance athlete (and don't be afraid of thinking of yourself that way if you can ride a century) it is likely that your resting heart rate will be significantly lower than other people your age.

What this means is that IF you need to go to the emergency room FOR ANY REASON you MUST tell them that you are an athlete. Otherwise when they take your heart rate they will assume that you're suffering the early signs of a heart attack - slowed (and eventually stopped) heart rate.

You are the one responsible for your own health. It isn't some driver's fault if you fall into traffic and get run over. It isn't someone else's fault if you don't recognize the early signs of stroke or heart attack. And it isn't the hospital's fault if you don't inform your doctors and they have you on twenty machines before they discover that you're perfectly healthy and hand you a bill for $30,000.

Actually, I wonder what your reason is for saying this...

I have actually read (in forums and on the internet, so the reliability is not high) that the maximum heart rate is actually more a factor of heredity than fitness or health.

I have read that the ability for one to work closer to one's maximum for longer periods of time is a measure of fitness.

I have surmised that the ability to perform more work before one approaches the maximum heart rate is a measure of fitness.

Is the ratio of the computed maximum and the observed maximum really a factor of poor health? I could see if it was extreme (i.e. if a person can easily achieve 150% of computed maximum or is unable to exert enough to exceed 50% of maximum).. I don't know of any issues that should cause worry if within 10-20 percent of the computed max... but, then again I am not medically trained, so I can easily be wrong! :D

I do agree that slowness of recovery being a factor that should be taken into consideration, and I have heard the issue with the heart rate in an emergency situation... Good advice!

My computed is also 220-49 = 171 and I hit the 180s every day and the low 190's almost once a week and 196 once. The calc is total BS.

You're only as old as you feel. Working it out mathematically, (220-168) you must feel like you are 52. :D

Which is why when the skeptical, the naysayers, the chronically dark-minded would persuade us to "get real" and accept limitations and boundaries, we need to remind ourselves that often those accepted boundaries are arbitrary, conventional thinking that may, only just may, be true...........and therefore they are worth our time trying to break free.

The best reply to the "nattering nabobs of negativism" (remember that one? :rolleyes:) are shared experiences like Dnvr's. How many rides have each of us almost turned back from, only to push on and succeed at what seemed a distant goal. These posts are filled with people who say 10 miles was their limit last year, but they're doing a metric or more now and would never have thought....................that's what BF50 is really all about. Ta--Da!!

YEAH!:D Best reponse of the day!

Yesterday, when my friend and I were cruising along at 21 mph totally at ease for miles on end, I felt about 35! That was a great feeling.

My computed is 220-49=171. I have seen 198 on hill climbs, so the 220-age is a pretty poor estimate of max heart rate. I have also read that if you are not in very good physical condition you may not even be able to get to your max rate until you get in better condition. Hr max is also activity dependant.

When I take a picture of my bike I put it front of my garage door.

OK
Aug 05 rode around the block 0.7 miles a 300+/- foot change in elevation.
I was exhausted and fell asleep on the couch.
Min heart rate 60 bpm before I started riding a bike.

Whenever I checked my min. heart rate thru the year it always was around 60 bpm
(59-62)

July 06
I got up to 70 miles averaging 15 mph with a lot of rolling hills.
Min heart rate 60 bpm

What’s the deal with that? At least you could say I’m consistent.

For training it seems as you discover a higher Max heart rate, you would just adjust your
training #’s. There is the possibility of a monitor error. Though it would seem to error on
the low side as it lost contact for some reason. Or low battery .

I ride past a military instilation every day, and my computer goes crazy for about 5 minutes...Max speed, 94 MPH! Max heart rate, 260!

I've always relied more on my recovery rate as a measure of fitness. That is, how long after a difficult ride does it take me to get back to my normal resting heart rate (as measured first thing in the morning before getting out of bed.) I do this becasue I've found that stress, illness or other normal factors that seem to show up throughout the year can have an impact on max heart rate. So, while riding, I monitor my heart rate at the start of the season to keep me from pushing too hard, too fast, but by July I've stopped wearing the heart rate monitor. Then I take a post ride pulse and check it with the resting pulse the next day.

I take mine in front of, on one, or near, a snow pile.

FWIIW: Polar computed my MHR at 149, well under the amount we are talking about (220-48=172). About the highest rate I've ever seen is 155, and that is at the end of a 2 mile long 900 foot climb. No matter how hard I try I can't make it go higher. I'll ask my Doc about it next week at the annual physical.

Denver, I'm amazed at how many didn't get your sarcasim! :D