kuf

Threshold HR is much better to know than "max" HR. Threshold and Max are not in a set ratio, so to know how hard to go for an hour, you can't rely on some percentage of Max. Threshold is much more important than some Max number you've seen.

edit: Friel calculates HR Zones based on Threshold, not Max.

pharding

There are multiple ways to calculate maximum heart rate. https://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

SeaBee

According to that article, all 39-y/o cyclists with ave (don't concider myself as elite at all!) experience will have HR max between 174 and 184, depending on which formula you use. Utter BS. Both Polar and Garmin tell me I reach way way above that. Generalisation at best.

I've reached more than what these guys use to start off on over the weekend. And the previosu weekend. And the one before that. And...

It's individual - and yeah sure age affects it, but there's no way everybodies max of a certain age is the same. Or maybe I'm unique...

Braden1550

According to those formula's, my 17 year old heart is incapable of beating 203bpm, I've hit 220 in a spin session. I don't think there is a universal scientific formula.

MDcatV

explain how the test is conducted more specifically.

i assume you'll be on a bicycle not running on a treadmill.

a typical vo2max test that I'm familiar with goes like this:

you're on your bike attached to a computrainer with breathing apparatus and HRM on while the test administrator (coach) ramps up intensity while the computer analyses respirations and does a calculation comparing "fat cals" vs. "carb cals", then when carb cals>fat cals you go as hard as you can for 30" until exhaustion which will then calculate your vo2max.

the point at which "fat cals = carb cals" is considered your LTHR, a somewhat useful measurement.

the vo2max # is just that, a #.

I used to work with a coach that used these types of tests about 4x/year. 1 at beginning of the "training" season, 1 at the end of "base", 1 at "peak", and 1 at seasons end. I honestly thought they were of little use as they are too far apart and not frequent enough to know whether the results were daily variation or actual improvement or decline. Based on these tests and my own observations, I also came to the conclusion that HR is not a useful training tool, and that almost everyone would be better off training with their own perceived exertion using a logical training program.

I'd suggest saving your money and spending it on actual coaching or a consultation with a coach to discuss your prior experience, goals, available time, and get help with a training program that fits your own purpose for cycling.

BobLoblaw

220 minus your age is not useful for predicting your max HR. It's got a standard deviation of 11, meaning you could be plus or minus eleven BPM and still be considered "normal."

As for VO2 max, personally, I don't want to know.

BL

spdrcr5

and what if you're still over that number? I'm 45, so 220-45=175+11=186... I can easily reach 186 and am nowhere near gasping for air. I have seen my HR reach into the low 190's on a fairly regular basis and have been able to carry on conversations. My resting HR is 56.

I_Like_Bike

Lets say your MHR is 198 that means you are more than two standard deviations from the mean. Since we know that on a normal distribution 95% of people will fall between 153-197. You are pretty much a statistical anomaly, but the standard deviation for people who exercise is most likely higher than 11.

jrobe

"The test is $$$ so I wanted to find out if it's even need. "


Save the money on the VO2 Max test and put it into the start of your "Powertap" fund.

A powermeter will give you far more information that is useful than any other test (including heartrate).

jrobe

Of course, the only important question is, how much power can you put out at that HR? Unfortunately power output has no correlation with an individual's HR (at least in comparing them to someone else).

They don't give out prizes for the fastest HR.

cleansheet

Doctors, in general, during the course of a day, don't see too many healthy people. It is probably a safer system to just use the 220 rule with everyone (especially from a malpractice point of view).

umd

Doctors also tend to freak out if they get anyone with an rhr under 60...

bpert

fixed!

Tunnelrat81

I recently did a VO2 max test as part of a local exercise physiology study and it was done similarly to the description above. Mask recording respiration data, O2 Saturation sensor hanging from my ear lobe, and a computer controlled restistance increasing in increments to the point that you can't pedal anymore.

It was my understanding that with the available data, they're able to gauge your bodies ability to increase it's Oxygen use as the intensity slowly increases. At a certain point, you're intensity will continue to increase but you're body simply can't increase it's delivery of oxygen to the muscles any more quickly. This represents the max aerobic capacity that you're capable of combining your lungs, heart, and cells efficiency in capturing, delivering and processing oxygen. That number represents your VO2 Max.

I'm glad someone pointed out the importance of power numbers above as well. I may have a higher VO2 max than someone else, but I can only output as much power as my muscles are able to produce. Another thing to note is that just because you have a high or low max, doesn't mean you can take advantage of that maximum. You'll be able to operate at a certain percentage of that max for a set period of time based on your level of fitness/training. If I have a VO2 max of 92 ( as was said about Greg Lemond) but I can only operate for any period of time at 60 percent of that...I'll get rocked by someone with a max of 65 who can maintain exertion at or near his max. That's why it's said to be kind of a bogus number. Mostly a bragging rights number. It can be encouraging to know, and lets you know that perhaps you'll be able (with lots of hard work and training) to ultimately reach a higher level of cycing than someone else who has a lower max.

My VO2 max was indicated at well above average....and that hasn't changed the fact that I get rocked by plenty of people regularly in our weekly group rides. I just get the benefit of knowing that I'm slow because I'm lazy, not because my body has imposed tight limits on me.

-Jeremy

spdrcr5

No clue if I am a statistical anomaly as I only stated I have been in the low 190's and didn't give a max that I have seen. You put the anomaly aspect together on your own. For the most part I fall within the range you created along with the % you could have pulled out of thin air for all anyone knows.

no clue how much power I can put out, don't have anything to measure it with but plan on borrowing a friends PowerMeter at some point just for fun. This discussion wasn't about power output. Someone asked about VO2 max testing and others began discussing Max HR. I have always wondered about Max HR as well. I've had friends tell me I can't have a HR in the 180's, let alone 190's because it doesn't make sense. Well, I don't know how to keep it lower when all I am doing is riding. Been trying to figure out what to enter into my Garmin and always just randomly chosen 195 since I have seen that a few times, needed to enter some number.

umd

your friends are stupid. As for entering into the garmin, do a test to determine your lthr (e.g. The 2x20 test stickied in the training forum) and manually enter your zones from that.

I_Like_Bike

For all anyone with, no knowledge of statistics, knows. It is know as the Emperical Rule and has to do with standard deviations of normal distribution curves. The only number I made up was the MHR. Oh the number I stated before was 98.5% it is really 95% so you are not a statistical anomly after all.

timeedgevxr

yes, its worthless.
I'm 33 yrs old. My max is 204bpm and I can ride a flat 10 mile TT in about 20 minutes with an avg bpm of 186. Within 30 minutes of the finish, I'll be between 90-95bpm. On a regular old training ride I can sit for hours at 165-175 without diving into my LT. My resting rate is 52bpm.

umd

Of course it's worthless... That was my point. I was just surprised nobody had said it yet.

umd

I'm calling bs on the 30mph tt though.

pdedes

48km/hr on a flat 16k tt, doable.

orcanova

That formula is completely useless, as has been stated.

I believe threshold HR refers to the anaerobic threshold, which is lower than max HR. They are two different things, max HR being higher than AT.

It can be much more than 11, as much as 20 or more. I have a triathlete buddy I used to train with. We were competitive and about of equal ability and pace. On the run he was about 20 bpm lower than me, on the bike about 10 bpm lower. Everyone is different, which means to me that of a doc starts quoting me the 220- minus your age formula, which has been debunked a million times over, then I am wasting my time with that doctor. I will only get into HR data with a doctor who understands sports physiology intimately and we can discuss LT, MHR and whatnot that is specific to me. Sidenote: the only times I have heard that formula quoted by doctors were guys who were very close to retirement and could not discern differences between young people very well. In otherwords, they generalized all young people as a group, like a bin of tomatoes in a supermarket.

milnerpt

220-age is not worthless. working in healthcare when you get very limited time, things like this are useful places to start. I agree only foolish, (or those who just did not listen well/read their ACSM thoroughly) would think that this is the way to determine MHR.... just an estimate and place to start.

Likewise, any cyclist that rides regularly on this forum would be foolish to assume this is the end all. But its a place to start.

Although not a physician, I would HOPE my physician would do a double take if I told him my heart rate runs in the 50s or lower, as well as if Im telling him how I get it up to 220. If (s)he didnt take a serious interest in hearing this, well, they really dont care about your health. Again, not that these heart rates are detrimental, but they do raise red flags.

pedalhard

No longer racing but have hit a plateau hopeing to break out of it. I have never be much of a gaget sort of guy I tryed training with a heart rate monitor and never liked it, I have always gone with feeling amount of effort and never had a problem. Now I have turned 50 I find as I said a plateau has been reached, so I was thinking maybe using a gaget might help. I think power meters maybe the way to go from here. Also I believe a max heart rate test really needs to be done by a doctor as they are dangerous if not.

timeedgevxr

...sorry, my benchmark is 20:57 for a 9.7 mile course (close enough) . That's 27.7 mph ...and I've never placed better than 5th in this series. We've got guys riding mid 19's on this course. 30mph on a flat 10 mile course is VERY doable.