ScottBolton

I'm 47 which, according to a commonly adopted formula (205.8−[0.685 × Age]), means that my maximum heart rate is 173. What does this mean? Is it the maximum I should let my heart get to or is it the limit above which my heart will explode? I ask because at the weekend I hit 187 cycling over a bridge in Holland. Ok I was pushing it, but my average is typically very close to this maximum estimate. I "train" with a HRM but really this just means I record my HR during my rides. I have tried to stay within a zone, 4 or 5, but I just get bored. Should I be riding differently?

S

chasm54

I'm not a cardiologist, but the formulae for estimating maximum HR are all bunk, there is no real science behind them. Maximum HR varies dramtically from person to person, and isn't a very important number.

Your maximum is your maximum, you can't exceed it and your heart won't explode if you reach it.

As for whether you should be riding differently, that depends on how you are riding now and what it is that you want to achieve. Certainly just going hard all the time with an average HR of around 170, if that's what you're doing, probably isn't the most effective way to train.

Machka 

+1

My max HR in my mid-30s was 194 according to several HR monitor readings.

According to the 220-age thing, it should have been 184.

According to the (205.8−[0.685 × Age]) formula, it should have been 181.


The formulas may work for some people but they don't work for all people.

tjkoko

You need to google the term target heart rate. It gives you a round number to shoot for when working out. Again, I stated round number.

JameB

That formula is to be used to determine your heart rate zones. For effective fat burning, your heart rate should be ~60% of your max heart rate. Calculate the max using that formula (to get an estimate) and try to stay near the 60% mark.

I'm 21, my max should be somewhere between 187 and 199 (according to different formulas). But, I've sustained a 210 heart rate for ~30 seconds a few months ago...

achoo

It means absolutely nothing.

Your max heart rate is the fastest it can beat. Well, until you almost get run over by a car and it beats faster than your max. Then you get a new max. Which itself is only good until you get a death wobble during a 50 mph descent during a race and your max heart rate suddenly jumps up by 12 beats per minute.

And...

Your max heart is almost meaningless in training anyway. "Lactate Threshold Heart Rate" is what you want to use to set up heart rate training zones.

chasm54

It's bunk, it merely perpetuates the inaccurate belief that max HR is broadly consistent between individuals and varies consistently with age. That's nonsense. If I went by those "round numbers" I'd be assuming I was working hard when in fact I'm about 20bpm below my lactate threshold.

The only way to know what "target heart rate" is for training purposes is to test for it - either max HR or, more usefully, LTHR - and then base your training zones on your results, not on some bogus formula.

DBA

The formulas are nearly worthless. They are probably fine to use the first year of serious training....or maybe just the first couple months.
Eventually you should do a field test (Carmichael or Friel or other), and determine your LTHR to establish your training zones.
Then you should repeat that same test every couple of months to recalibrate as your fitness improves.

Null66

Tried HR training using intervals. It was very effective.

However, the age based formulas are worthless.

You have to measure your max HR per the theory based you are using as they are all slightly different from each other.

My max HR is really low.

tjkoko

Well, I'm certainly glad that there's someone out there who can point out what's bull**** and what isn't. It's nice having a know-it-all on board.

Don in Austin

I hit 176 at age 64. Formula is worthless. Maximum, means ABSOLUTE maximum, no amount of exertion can make it go faster.

Don in Austin

Don in Austin

You will burn more fat above this so-called fat burning zone, just not as high a percentage. If you search "fat burning zone" you will find many links where the "fat burning zone" is discredited.

Don in Austin

hamster

MHR variability from the first study I could find in google:


Formulas are good for predicting average MHR, they just fail to inform you that any randomly picked person can easily be up to 20 bpm above or below the average.

GeorgeBMac

Yep, you got it. The formulas are not bunk or garbage or any other pejorative. They are averages for 'typical' people. Since nobody is a typical person, they are seldom accurate on an individual level. But, they are a good starting point until you are able measure YOUR max...

As to the debate on whether training to a max heart rate or LTHR is better. The answer probably depends on your goals. It seems to me that LTHR has more to do with performance. MaxHR has more to do with overall cardio fitness.

JerrySTL

My cardiologist told me that a healthy heart won't 'explode' or anything like that short of doing some drugs like cocaine.

That's a healthy heart. I found out at the tender age of 44 YO that my heart wasn't so healthy when I had a minor heart attack while riding. I was in the upper 170s at the time.

So if your heart is healthy - and 180s seems pretty healthy - then go for it. Don't worry too much about a rule of thumb formula.

If you are really interested, have a stress test performed on you. Maybe go to someone that specializes in sports medicine as most cardiologists will only take you to 85% of that silly formula.

chasm54

That is precisely why they are garbage. You can't have an average for a "typical person", you can only have an average for a population. Were the formulae expressed as "the average max HR for a 25 year-old is x but individuals very by as much as +/- 20bpm", that would be fine. But they aren't. They are expressed as "the max HR for a 25 year-old is x" which is inaccurate and actually misleading in terms of training. Which is why your subsequent statement:

would be incorrect even if MHR was the best metric to use for training purposes.

What? Since max HR varies from person to person, and changes only marginally, if at all, in response to training, how has it "more to do with overall cardio fitness"?

tjkoko

Like I stated, formulas and numbers are "ballpark" and at least you personally realize that fact.

GeorgeBMac

Sounds like you just like to argue...

But, for your last question: training to max heart rate (rather than LTHR) is better for measuring and developing cardio fitness because LTHR is mostly a measure of metabolic efficiency rather than the cardiac proficiency. If you are trying to develop performance, then LTHR is a good measurement to train to. If you are trying to develop cardiac strength and proficiency, then LTHR is mostly irrelevant and Max HR is the better metric to use.

In short, WHEN your body converts over to anaerobic metabolism has little to do with the pumping capacity of your heart and, if your heart is healthy, your body reaches that state long before you reach the maximum performance of your heart. So, if you are trying to improve the fitness of your cardiovascular and pulmonary systems, max heart rate is the better measurement to use.

chasm54

No, I don't just like to argue. The inaccuracy of the formulae for MHR isn't a trivial matter as far as training is concerned, and this is, after all, the training forum. If the formula tells me my MHR should be 180, and I train on that assumption when my actual MHR is 160, I'm not going to be training properly and will spend most of my time exhausted and making very little progress. And if the error is in the other direction, I'm not going to be training nearly hard enough to improve.

With regard to your point above, I agree that LTHR is a measure of metabolic efficiency. But what we are talking about here is the most useful metric for training purposes. And in practice, training on the basis of LTHR will involve training above LTHR when doing htreshold and VO2 max intervals, as well as doing extended periods at well below LTHR to develop aerobic capacity. And as far as I understand it, those training sessions are going to develop CV capacity, stroke volume, vascularisation of muscle tissue etc. whether or not one is basing one's zones on MHR. So I can't see why training to MHR will improve one's cardiac fitness better than training to LTHR, given that these are just numbers and one's heart isn't going to know how one has calculated one's zones.

On the other hand, LTHRis trainable, and focussing on that as the basis for zone calculation will ensure that one can train with the object of increasing one's aerobic capacity and threshold power. Simply using MHR doesn't do that as efficiently, because MHR doesn't change (except for slowly declining with age). Thus if one is training on the basis of MHR one's HR training zones will remain the same indefinitely, while one's LTHR will rise with training. As a result, when using MHR one will find oneself training less efficiently, over time, because one's training zones will not have adjusted to take account of one's increased power and the fact that one can now produce that power at a lower HR.

Just to belabour the point, between 2011 and 2013 my LTHR rose from 156 to 162 with training. My MHR will have changed hardly at all in that time, maybe dropping a couple of beats. So had I been training with MHR, by the end of that two-year period, when I thought I was training at threshold (top of HR z4) I would in fact have been training at tempo (HR z3). Thus by the end of the period I wouldn't have been training hard enough to take account of my increased fitness, and my progress would have plateaued.

That's the principal reason, in my view, why LTHR is superior to MHR as the metric for HR-based training. I'd be genuinely interested if you have information that might undermine that conclusion.

Of course, one could also argue that all this is a really good reason for buying a powermeter...

gregf83 

Cardiac 'strength' is seldom, if ever, a limiter of cycling performance. Your heart pumps as fast as it needs to. You don't slow down because your heart gets tired of pumping.

FBinNY 

+1, ANY published guidelines on anything medical are all just that --- guidelines, based on averages. However the person to person variance is staggering so your personal capabilities and requirements can be very different. There are 60 years olds fitter and with higher training ranges than some 30 years old. The only way you can know your numbers is to establish them with the help of a pro, not off some chart.

BTW- as I said, this applies to everything, form heart rate, to calorie consumption, to how your body handles sodium, to bone density, to your risk of cancer. The human spectrum is very wide, and guidelines are just single points based on statistical averages. As they say in the auto world, your mileage may vary.

gl98115

tl;dr

tjkoko

I am a doctor, a chiropractor who has teaching experience in health science. And my diagnosis here is that there are a few of you who need to get a god d*mn life and cease nit picking.

curbtender

By the way, I have this crick in my neck...

CharlyAlfaRomeo

Awww muffin.

Well then hopefully no one sidelines this thread with a "chiropractors are quacks" line of reasoning.