peterws

Something wrong wi you lot! My max around 144; got it to 160 on a stationary bike when i was about 52. I'm pushing 69 now, but i don't do distances. Short and sharp; I'm happy if I reach 135 after 5 mins on a treadmill at 8mph. Bit more on a stationary bike running at 1100 cals/hr.
I've earned a cappuccino and some dark chocolate ginger biscuits after that . . .

dbf909

According to the "rule of thumb" based on age mine should be 164. I regularly hit 180 in sprints and peaked yesterday evening at 189 (highest measured since I got the HRM, 2 months ago). I didn't stay there for long though - only a few seconds. I would guess that this was pretty much my absolute max. Although I didn't see stars or bonk, I could really not go any harder - my body just started to gradually pull back on the effort and the rate dropped down to the low 180s or a minute or so.

So for me, the 220-age rule is pretty far from reality.

MinnMan

184 is the highest I've ever seen on my HRM. I've seen high 170s quite regularly, and 180-181 plenty of times. 183 and 184, seldom, and only when I was really kicking out the jams. So I think that's close. I'm 56, so 220-age isn't right for me, either.

StanSeven

This is excellent. Thanks for the informative post!

About the only way I come close to max cycling is standing on long, steep hills.

Speedskater

Those formulas like 220-age only come close when you look at the average of a very large number of people, tested under similar medical lab conditions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
I'm age 75 and my Polar FT4 goes bananas when my heart rate gets much over 170. Gel or cream, summer or winter, it just doesn't matter.

Mack3601

I get into my 180's pretty regularly.

bowzette

Stan I think an ideal way to try to max out is find a location with a rather flat section of road but long enough you can ride as hard as you can at a high cadence at least 90 rpm but 100 would be better. Then you hit a steep climb at the end of the flat section stand and go all out. I bet the HR will be higher than you can get on a trainer or flat road or even the hill by itself. I have just such a section of road and hill (12% grade) a couple of miles from my house, but I don't have sufficient life insurance to give it a try

Barrettscv 

Currently it's 161bpm. I'm not exactly dizzy and semi-conscious, but it's what I get when surging up a 15% grade at maximum effort on a 5 minute climb.

I once saw 175bpm seven years ago, but I'm not sure that was a repeatable value.

FlashBazbo

I'm 57 and my max HR has been 183 for several years. If you don't feel as if you are dying and/or about to throw up, you're not at your max yet. I will admit that testing for max HR scares me a bit these days. I don't test specifically for it anymore. I just look at my HR trace on hard races (usually at the top of a brutal climb) and that pretty well fits the dying/throw up conditions.


Coincidentally, my father (at age 78) also had a max HR of 183. It didn't do him much good, though. It's just a number determined by genetics. By itself, it doesn't tell you anything about your level of fitness.

jdcowboy

I'm 63. I used to top 200 (That 220-your age has never been right). Now I figure 190 is max HR. I hit it every once in a while. Interestingly, I can only hit about 170 in a spin class.

jimincalif

I maxed at 192 on a ride in April, age 59. Normally I don't exceed 170 on a ride.

MinnMan

Maxing out is easier said than done and not everybody will find the same strategy useful. There are lots of seeming hard efforts where I won't max out b/c my legs or my will give out before my HR tops up. The most reliable way for me to max out is to go up a tough hill to trying to keep up with somebody who is strong, provided that the hill is long enough to really hurt. On that same hill without the pacing of the other person, I'll ease off before I really max out.

(and I might add, though this is apropos of another thread, rather than this one, that this is the funny space between "competitive" and "self-competitive". If I'm riding with a friend and we are both charging up a hill, I don't really care if he or she pulls ahead or if I do, but I very much enjoy having my limits pushed by the confluence of my desire and the other person's.)

ironwood

Is this safe for someone a hundred pounds overweight? When you see stars it means either you have a problem with your retina, or probably your body is cutting off nutrients and oxygen to your retinas. Maybe your early healthy lifestyle protects you now, but does your doctor approve?

MikeOK

Yes my doctor is partly why I got on the bike. And im not 100 lb's overweight.

ctpres

165 at 77yo - 9,500 ft elevation and 45% grade last summer.

MinnMan

uh, 45%?

ironwood

I thought I read on other posts in other threads that you were 5'7" tall and weighed 265 lbs; that's my height and 165 is the upper limit of normal weight. I'm glad you ok'd it with your doctor.

MikeOK

Well my senior year of high school football I was about 170, really lean. I got into weight lifting and put on about 25 lb's. In my 30's at my racing weight I was barely a clydesdale, at around 200-204. So I have about 55-60 lb's to go. Maybe a little more since I haven't lifted in years and don't have near the muscle mass that I did.

I actually peaked in weight at 282 but as of this morning I am 262 so I've lost 20 lb's mainly by biking, I haven't changed my diet all that much.

ctpres

Short segment of this route - real man killer. My lifetime goal is to get all the way up it just once. Actually steepest part is supposed to be 55%.
https://www.flattestroute.com/?from=...mentMode=miles

deacon mark

I am 56 and you got me all I can barely get my to 162 either running or all out up hill cycling up a long steep grade standing to pedal. I might add that my resting heart rate is 38-40 and even during the day it will stay under 50. I have high blood pressure too and have take medication since I was 15 years old...no joke at teenager with high blood pressure. In the 1970's they were clueless and still cannot figure it out. oh well.

IK_biker

Ummm, re-check your facts.
The steepest grade in that particular section is 14%. Not 45%, not 53%.
14%.
It is a road, and no one on Earth has ever graded a road steeper than 35% because no vehicle (including one pulled by a draft animal team) is capable of climbing anything steeper.
The same road reaches 18% a bit further up.

A regular wheelbase bicycle can not climb anything over 40% as the front wheel lifts completely off thereabout.

ctpres

Sorry but I see 53% or 23.8 degrees. Just a glance at "% slope graph" shows around 50%. These "roads" were originally used only by burrows in the mining days. The official recommendations are for two wheel drive vehicles to back down. If you can get up it I'll buy dinner.

NachosGrande

Not only the HR number, but I think the length that you can hold AT is also important. For example, ideally if you are in a Cat4 Crit you want to try holding your HR at AT level for at least 30min. If you're Cat 3 or above the goal is to hold it longer than 40min... Say 60min

mackgoo

58 and recently hit 183 going up a hill. Felt comfortable with some heavy breathing.

metalheart44

Puzzled by what information you are seeking from these kinds of anecdotal data, but I am 73 and mine has reached 171 on a hard climb pushed on by some younger 50-66 y/0 riders. Prior to that about 168 was my high on a hard climb, but it was a peak. I try not to sustain anything much above 155 for any distance while climbing or in a fast group ride.

Here are the caveats: (1) I take a beta blocker, which does have some effect on maximum heart rate, although there are ways to work around this -- with our docs permission -- by timing dosage; (2) After my first heart attach my cardiologist estimated I lost 15-20% of heart muscle, which I hope I have overcome. I'm not sure what my observed max heart rate tells me and I tend to use perceived level of effort as a guide to how I am doing and then glance at my HRM to see how that compares for that day.

At one point I did a reasonable amount of reading about calculating maximum heart rate and the effect of beta blockers on HRmax. There is a ton to information out there, so you will have no problem with a Google to find studies about calculating/predicting maximum heart rate.

Most papers I read found the 220-age to be an unreliable predictor of maximum heart rate, especially for older adults (e.g. Robergs often cited paper) . For me that would be 220-73 = 147. At that HR I am working hard, but it is not a max/peak for me. Another popular formula is the one by Tanaka 208-(age*.7) which for me would be about 157. For my perceived level of effort that is a hard ride for a sustained effort, but again not a peak effort) A third formula is 211-(age x .64) which yields about 165, which is pretty close for me.

If you are using heart rate zones for training, knowing HRmax is part of the process, but I am not sure what it means otherwise. And, if you have comprised heart functioning, take drugs that lower your heart rate, then using something like the age-220 formula may be no better than a WAG.