Notices
Fifty Plus (50+) Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling.

Heart Rate

Old 05-22-19, 05:25 AM
  #26  
jadocs
Senior Member
 
jadocs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 2,192

Bikes: Ti, Mn Cr Ni Mo Nb, Al, C

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 942 Post(s)
Liked 526 Times in 349 Posts

I don’t know. For me the auto calculated seems to be pretty close. I’m 52 (206lbs on a 19lb bike) and I have never seen above 168. I also use Training Peaks and it lets me know when I hit a new threshold which is currently 158 and the HR values auto calculate based on that. Here is a typical effort for myself.

Last edited by jadocs; 05-22-19 at 05:51 AM.
jadocs is offline  
Old 05-22-19, 07:17 AM
  #27  
Iride01 
I'm good to go!
 
Iride01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 14,800

Bikes: Tarmac Disc Comp Di2 - 2020

Mentioned: 50 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6099 Post(s)
Liked 4,730 Times in 3,260 Posts
Originally Posted by jadocs

I don’t know. For me the auto calculated seems to be pretty close. I’m 52 (206lbs on a 19lb bike) and I have never seen above 168. I also use Training Peaks and it lets me know when I hit a new threshold which is currently 158 and the HR values auto calculate based on that. Here is a typical effort for myself.
Just because it's correct for some doesn't make it correct for all. The reason it's touted is because someone was able to figure out a formula that fit a large percentage of the people in the group they based it on.

Still what you don't tell us about the effort you posted is whether you were going all out and trying as hard as you possibly could.

I'm 61 and I can hit 180 briefly and stay in the low 170's for a short time.
Iride01 is offline  
Old 05-22-19, 09:58 AM
  #28  
zjrog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,753

Bikes: 1986 KHS Fiero, 1989 Trek 950, 1990 Trek 7000, 1991 Gary Fisher Hoo Koo E Koo, 1992 Trek 1400, 1997 Cannondale CAD2 R300, 1998 Cannondale CAD2 R200, 2002 Marin San Rafael, 2006 Cannondale CAAD8 R1000, 2010 Performance Access XCL9R

Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 284 Post(s)
Liked 385 Times in 207 Posts

As someone that a year ago was wary of a heart attack, I did something about it. I was 378 and worried about being around much longer. I decided on weight loss surgery, specifically gastric sleeve. 113 pounds down from my heaviest, 91 since surgery. Followed my cardiologists guidelines. And for me, closely follow the 220-age. I'm 56 now. Was a runner and cyclist in the past. Knee replacement, back injury, another failing knee, Achilles tendon repair on one ankle and the other severely injured, I gained weight. Exercise was difficult and painful. And now, with weight coming off I feel better, can move better. My cardiologist doesn't want to see me for a year. Coronary calcium scan was a perfect zero... And she cleared me to any heart rate I am comfortable with.

Above effort was 30 minutes on my trainer, bike is a 86 KHS upgraded to mostly Shimano 105 5600 level. Compact crankset. I would say for myself, the effort was hard. But not into difficult range yet, the mag trainer was on the 3rd level. Even so, far better than I could imagine year ago. My RHR is about 60. A year ago it was 105...

For now, the 220-age is sufficient. But as I get stronger, I will re-evaluate. With my cardiologist's approval of course... Damn. How did I get old enough to need a cardiologist?
zjrog is offline  
Old 05-22-19, 09:01 PM
  #29  
jadocs
Senior Member
 
jadocs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 2,192

Bikes: Ti, Mn Cr Ni Mo Nb, Al, C

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 942 Post(s)
Liked 526 Times in 349 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01
Just because it's correct for some doesn't make it correct for all. The reason it's touted is because someone was able to figure out a formula that fit a large percentage of the people in the group they based it on.

Still what you don't tell us about the effort you posted is whether you were going all out and trying as hard as you possibly could.

I'm 61 and I can hit 180 briefly and stay in the low 170's for a short time.
Concur, I'm just saying it is pretty spot on for me. Yes, I was working hard that day fighting the wind trying to keep it above 22mph. Every dip in the speed chart above was me directly getting hit with wind from the front. The last part of the route has two hills and I went as hard as I could up those. Those were totally all out. Average for the ride was 153, max HR was 163. Like I said my zones were not calculated by the 220-age, they were calculated by Training Peaks and HR Threshold...which happened to work out pretty exact to the 220-age.
jadocs is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 03:29 AM
  #30  
KraneXL
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,623

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3405 Post(s)
Liked 240 Times in 185 Posts
Originally Posted by Iride01
Just because it's correct for some doesn't make it correct for all. The reason it's touted is because someone was able to figure out a formula that fit a large percentage of the people in the group they based it on.

Still what you don't tell us about the effort you posted is whether you were going all out and trying as hard as you possibly could.

I'm 61 and I can hit 180 briefly and stay in the low 170's for a short time.
You just defined the point of an average. Its not meant to exact, nor does it work for 100% of the population. However, for the vast majority, and for all intents and purpose its close enough. Obviously, if you have an ailment or some congenital abnormality it won't work for you as you will fall outside the curve.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 09:28 AM
  #31  
davester
Senior Member
 
davester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 2,531

Bikes: 1981 Ron Cooper, 1974 Cinelli Speciale Corsa, 2000 Gary Fisher Sugar 1, 1986 Miyata 710, 1982 Raleigh "International"

Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 926 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times in 482 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL
You just defined the point of an average. Its not meant to exact, nor does it work for 100% of the population.
It is not an average, and it doesn't apply to older people. It was based on some very rough observations of groups of younger people. Once the age number gets large it doesn't really work at all. Since this is the 50+ forum it probably applies to essentially nobody here. If you're going to use anything simplistic like this use instead the 208 - (0.7 x age) formula which represented a stab at making a formula that applied to both older and younger folks. That one still comes up short for older athletic folks but at least it represents an attempt to compensate for age.
davester is offline  
Likes For davester:
Old 05-23-19, 10:33 AM
  #32  
John E
feros ferio
 
John E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,764

Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked 1,293 Times in 819 Posts
From the Mayo Clinic (note the incorporation of resting heart rate in the calculation):

If you're aiming for a target heart rate in the vigorous range of 70% to 85%, you can use the heart rate reserve (HRR) method to calculate it like this:

Subtract your age from 220 to get your maximum heart rate.
  • Calculate your resting heart rate by counting how many times your heart beats per minute when you are at rest, such as first thing in the morning. It's usually somewhere between 60 and 100 beats per minute for the average adult.
  • Calculate your heart rate reserve (HRR) by subtracting your resting heart rate from your maximum heart rate.
  • Multiply your HRR by 0.7 (70%). Add your resting heart rate to this number.
  • Multiply your HRR by 0.85 (85%). Add your resting heart rate to this number.
  • These two numbers are your average target heart rate zone for vigorous exercise intensity when using the HRR to calculate your heart rate. Your heart rate during vigorous exercise should generally be between these two numbers.
This gives me a target range of about 120 to 135, which seems about right, from experience.
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
John E is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 05:30 PM
  #33  
davester
Senior Member
 
davester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Berkeley CA
Posts: 2,531

Bikes: 1981 Ron Cooper, 1974 Cinelli Speciale Corsa, 2000 Gary Fisher Sugar 1, 1986 Miyata 710, 1982 Raleigh "International"

Mentioned: 97 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 926 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times in 482 Posts
Originally Posted by John E
From the Mayo Clinic (note the incorporation of resting heart rate in the calculation):

If you're aiming for a target heart rate in the vigorous range of 70% to 85%, you can use the heart rate reserve (HRR) method to calculate it like this:

Subtract your age from 220 to get your maximum heart rate...
Except that their method is totally flawed because it uses the bogus 220 - age formula to set the upper limit. This will result in most older people training at a HR that is not in the vigorous range as advertised. That's the whole problem with the bogus formula...it makes people think that they are at a higher training level than they actually are.

Last edited by davester; 05-23-19 at 05:44 PM.
davester is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 05:50 PM
  #34  
TimothyH
- Soli Deo Gloria -
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,782

Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix

Mentioned: 235 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6844 Post(s)
Liked 736 Times in 469 Posts
Even if 220-age was accurate or represented the average population, max heart rate is pretty much useless for training anyway.

Zones should be based off lactic threshold heart rate, not max.

https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/j...setting-zones/


-Tim-
TimothyH is offline  
Likes For TimothyH:
Old 05-23-19, 06:32 PM
  #35  
KraneXL
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,623

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3405 Post(s)
Liked 240 Times in 185 Posts
Saying one system is wrong without supply a more viable and accurate alternative is useless In addition, the aforementioned test makes no sense whatsoever. Not to mention its written very poorly.

I recognized that the science of nutrition and health are relatively new, so I try to keep an open mind on such things. However, so far the only thing I'm convinced of at this point it that there's room for growth.

There are a varieties of updated MHR methods available but none as of yet have been universally accepted or supplanted the de facto 220 - age which despite its implied limitations, is still recognized and used everywhere.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 07:26 PM
  #36  
jadocs
Senior Member
 
jadocs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: USA
Posts: 2,192

Bikes: Ti, Mn Cr Ni Mo Nb, Al, C

Mentioned: 22 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 942 Post(s)
Liked 526 Times in 349 Posts
Originally Posted by davester
It is not an average, and it doesn't apply to older people. It was based on some very rough observations of groups of younger people. Once the age number gets large it doesn't really work at all. Since this is the 50+ forum it probably applies to essentially nobody here.
I'm 52 and as mentioned above, it's spot on for me. Maybe I'm an anomaly.

Originally Posted by davester
That's the whole problem with the bogus formula...it makes people think that they are at a higher training level than they actually are.
For me, I don't train by HR, I train using power. The HR shown above is the byproduct of that, which happens to fall in line with 220-age. Too many variables affect HR and HR is not constant, but power is.
jadocs is offline  
Old 05-23-19, 08:21 PM
  #37  
caloso
Senior Member
 
caloso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 40,865

Bikes: Specialized Tarmac, Canyon Exceed, Specialized Transition, Ellsworth Roots, Ridley Excalibur

Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2952 Post(s)
Liked 3,106 Times in 1,417 Posts
Originally Posted by davester
Except that their method is totally flawed because it uses the bogus 220 - age formula to set the upper limit. This will result in most older people training at a HR that is not in the vigorous range as advertised. That's the whole problem with the bogus formula...it makes people think that they are at a higher training level than they actually are.
Exactly.

My predicted upper limit using this formula is still 23bpm below my observed LTHR. Which means that if I used that I would likely spend a lot time in the mushy middle: hard enough to cause fatigue but not hard enough to elicit much training response. So I won’t get any stronger, just tired.
caloso is offline  
Likes For caloso:
Old 05-23-19, 09:18 PM
  #38  
Loose Chain
Senior Member
 
Loose Chain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 2,067

Bikes: 84 Pinarello Trevisio, 86 Guerciotti SLX, 96 Specialized Stumpjumper, 2010 Surly Cross Check, 88 Centurion Prestige, 73 Raleigh Sports, GT Force, Bridgestone MB4

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 278 Post(s)
Liked 71 Times in 56 Posts
I can still push my heart rate way up, 200 range easy enough. But I train for triathlon year around, swim 3-5 miles, cycle (indoor or out) 75 miles and run/elliptical 18 miles and two full weight workouts per week. Yesterday some road weenies flew by me and something about it ticked me off, so I passed them for about a mile or so and made them chase, good thing my turnoff came up . But, it takes longer to recover and I cannot sustain the output of my earlier years, nor the peak HR of course either, I go anaerobic much quicker too. I take my resting HR once a week when I wake up, Monday morning, it is less than 40 BPM.

Last edited by Loose Chain; 05-23-19 at 09:22 PM.
Loose Chain is offline  
Likes For Loose Chain:
Old 05-24-19, 09:01 AM
  #39  
John E
feros ferio
 
John E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: www.ci.encinitas.ca.us
Posts: 21,764

Bikes: 1959 Capo Modell Campagnolo; 1960 Capo Sieger (2); 1962 Carlton Franco Suisse; 1970 Peugeot UO-8; 1982 Bianchi Campione d'Italia; 1988 Schwinn Project KOM-10;

Mentioned: 44 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1384 Post(s)
Liked 1,293 Times in 819 Posts
Originally Posted by Loose Chain
I can still push my heart rate way up, 200 range easy enough. But I train for triathlon year around, swim 3-5 miles, cycle (indoor or out) 75 miles and run/elliptical 18 miles and two full weight workouts per week. Yesterday some road weenies flew by me and something about it ticked me off, so I passed them for about a mile or so and made them chase, good thing my turnoff came up . But, it takes longer to recover and I cannot sustain the output of my earlier years, nor the peak HR of course either, I go anaerobic much quicker too. I take my resting HR once a week when I wake up, Monday morning, it is less than 40 BPM.
I guess you have a 20-year-old cardiovascular system.

Seriously, this is probably the flaw in 220-age, which should at least be modified to reflect the fact that we all age differently, and some, like yourself, are outliers (a very commendable thing, in this case).

One of my friends was a dedicated runner and commuting cyclist who used to enjoy "throwing a 42 [bpm pulse]" to his doctor during physical exams. I always thought this was a good thing, and still do, but I was interested to see concerns over bradycardia, even among athletes, on some medical websites. One of my exercise goals remains to push my resting pulse rate back down below 45.

What I find really intriguing about your case is the combination of a low resting pulse rate and a high maximum pulse rate. I can't go much above 150 (coincidentally close to 220 - 68), but I am sure I can't deliver anywhere near the peak power you can.

Side note: When I was an undergrad I was cruising along with a couple of other young guys I had met when we were passed by a guy with a white goatee and a white Mercier. One of my new-found friends asked, "Are your going to let an old guy like that pass you up?" I replied, "Hell no," and took off after him. As I caught up with Ollie, he told me, "You keep up a good pace." Given that he was obviously more than twice my age, I replied, "That's MY line." He told me he was training for the upcoming Los Angeles Wheelmen Double Century, and encouraged me to start training with him. Had it not been for this chance encounter, I doubt I would ever have considered attempting a double, since a double metric (125 miles) with my cousin several months earlier had just about wiped me out. I always love it when an older guy passes some of the "kids."
__________________
"Far and away the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing." --Theodore Roosevelt
Capo: 1959 Modell Campagnolo, S/N 40324; 1960 Sieger (2), S/N 42624, 42597
Carlton: 1962 Franco Suisse, S/N K7911
Peugeot: 1970 UO-8, S/N 0010468
Bianchi: 1982 Campione d'Italia, S/N 1.M9914
Schwinn: 1988 Project KOM-10, S/N F804069
John E is offline  
Old 05-24-19, 09:20 AM
  #40  
kensuf
My idea of fun
 
kensuf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gainesville, FL
Posts: 9,920

Bikes: '06 Litespeed Tuscany, '02 Kona Lavadome, '07 Giant TCR Advanced, '07 Karate Monkey

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked 59 Times in 36 Posts
Everyone's different. I'm 50 and my max HR is over 200. There are also so many things that can impact HR, drift from a long workout, dehydration, heat/cooling, caffeine, overtraining, etc.

As TmothyH said, training zones should be based on lactate.
kensuf is offline  
Old 05-24-19, 06:03 PM
  #41  
tigat
Senior Member
 
tigat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Colorado
Posts: 557

Bikes: 2021 Trek Checkpoint SL (GRX Di2), 2020 Domane SLR 9 (very green), 2016 Trek Emonda SL, 2009 Bianchi 928, 1972 Atala Record Pro

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 85 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 143 Times in 55 Posts
Originally Posted by davester
That's the whole problem with the bogus formula...it makes people think that they are at a higher training level than they actually are.
During a brief, extraordinarily painful effort to do high intensity, zone based "training" last year, I used numbers--lactic threshold, max heart rate, and ftp that had been lab tested and approved. My measured performance on the smart trainer always had the HR a zone or more higher than the power. The numbers or methodology might be bogus, but the pain was real. I just decided to forget about it and pedal on
tigat is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.