Equinox

I think my HRmax is significantly higher than that obtained from the usual formula. I don't want to have it tested. I guess HRmax can be dependent upon the activity, as weird as that sounds. I can get my HR up higher and maintain it longer while cross country skiing than I can on my bike. My HRmax is determined by formula to be 162. I skied for 38 minutes. Ninety five percent of that time was spent at Zone 4. Zone 5 and Above with a HRmax of 169.

caloso

If by "the usual formula" you mean the widely discredited 220 minus age formula, then yes, you can see why it's discredited. I'm 46 and thus my formula MaxHr is 174 but I typically have an average HR well above that for some crits and pretty much always in CX races.

Why do you not want to test for it?

Carbonfiberboy 

Yes, it's normal to have a higher LTHR when doing activities that engage more muscles. It's particularly noticeable doing Nordic skiing. I don't know about MHR. I've never tested it other than cycling.

chaadster

This site has a calculator for a bunch of calculation theories, including variations in activity types and experience levels:

https://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm

The "Miller method '93" seems to be most applicable to me for cycling.

elcruxio

Yeah the max HR formula doesn't really work. you just have to figure it out.

I'm 25 and my max hr on the bike is 180. (should I be worried? I get the feeling that as I'm seriously tall/big and not weak, in my opinion I shouldn't worry as it's supposed to be individual...)
Running/skiing 190

Looigi

All the formulas base only on age or age and gender will only be correct for the average of population, and not likely correct for any individual in the population as most will be either below or above the average. If you want to know yours you have to test it and it's very very hard to hit your max. FWIW: I'm 60 and mine is 183.

caloso

OP: you could just look at your data from XC and take the maxHR you hit during that session to base your zones on. It may not be your absolute max, but it's going to be a lot closer than any formula.

Coachtj Cormier

Why do you even care about MaxHR it's a pretty meaningless number. All it tells you is how high your HR can go that day for that activity. After that not much.
Tesing for MHR is not a good idea either again no real info. As your motovation will impact that number. As will many things whay do newbies get so hung up on MHR? It's because there is so much misinfo/misunderstood info.
MHR will change depending on what your doing, sleep/lack of, caffine, hydration/lack of.
For measuring performance again no use, you'ld be better off doing some other test, VO2Max, LT(or the threshold of your choice) If you have a pM you can field test(Not so much using HR alone).
For get MHR!

chaadster

Yes, I've often wondered about this, too. I mean, max HR in-and-of itself is no biggie, but you can use it to help set training HR zones, right? When compared to just trying to train off a speed reading from a cyclocomputer, which is what most recreational cyclists use, it does allow for a more dialed-in training regimen, doesn't it? Add in cadence numbers, and one can build a half-decent training course. Throw in power though, and the situation changes dramatically, in the sense that HR is no longer used to gauge effort.

Carbonfiberboy 

What's being implied is that a relatively easily obtained number, like FTP or LTHR, is a much more valuable number and also can be used to set training zones. MHR is unimportant, other than that historically many coaches and authors have used it to set training zones. A little math will transpose those zones to a tested LTHR. If you have a PM, I believe FTP has always been the number from which to set zones.

Coachtj Cormier

Using MHR to set training Levels is not a good thing either,as it would be very easy to under-recover (I like this term better then over-train) as your levels might require you to work harder then you should have to for a givin reponse. Example you probably can't hold the HR/PE/W's for 20min as you could for 8min.
The best way to figure out your levels is some form of testing and work off that.
Speed and cadence are not very good ways to find your levels or a way to set up a plan.
Using speed goes back to the dark ages of cycle -tech. It's somewhat usable but not reliable.
Using a PM is probaly the best way to go (now)much more usefutl info. Easier to quantify your training.
It also makes it much easier and more functional to field test. Using HR alone it's much harder to get real results way to many variables.

GeorgeBMac

Perhaps that depends on what your goals are...

If your goal is strictly performance, then yes, it doesn't tell you a lot.
If your goal is health and fitness -- particularly cardiac fitness, it is a useful tool. That is:

Your MaxHR is unlikely to change much based on anything that you can do... That is, for a reasonably fit person, train hard for a year and, if anything your MaxHR will most likely go down (due to being a year older). But, training TO that number can impact the other thresholds such as LTHR that you can affect with training.

For myself, my exercise physiologist wants me training at between 80% - 87% of my MaxHR. For him, that will produce the optimal cardiac benefit. It may or may not affect my LTHR or overall performance -- but for him, that is not relevant. He doesn't care how fast I go -- he only cares about how long I live.

Coachtj Cormier

[QUOTE=GeorgeBMac;16495481]Perhaps that depends on what your goals are...

If your goal is strictly performance, then yes, it doesn't tell you a lot.
If your goal is health and fitness -- particularly cardiac fitness, it is a useful tool. That is:

Your MaxHR is unlikely to change much based on anything that you can do... That is, for a reasonably fit person, train hard for a year and, if anything your MaxHR will most likely go down (due to being a year older). But, training TO that number can impact the other thresholds such as LTHR that you can affect with training.

Not true your MHR will be different for different activities, running will produce a higher MHR then cycling. Most weight bearing activites will ellict a higher MHR, than non-weight bearing

GeorgeBMac

[QUOTE=Coachtj Cormier;16495610]That may be true. But even if it is true, for a person in reasonably good condition, it is unlikely to change for any one of those activities -- except to decrease as the person ages. My understanding is that MaxHR is usually unaffected by training. I am sure that there are exceptions to that rule -- but that MaxHR tends to stay fairly steady and decrease with age.

Coachtj Cormier

[QUOTE=GeorgeBMac;16495962]It's just basic Ex/phys Look at any ex/phys test book ot's in there!

Carbonfiberboy 

Actually your measurable MHR changes all the time with training. Changes a lot! Which probably doesn't matter to your cardiologist. As long as you have some limit you are supposed to observe and he's happy with that, and you aren't having trouble and can still train some, that's all good.

Black wallnut 

Coach if HR is such a poor marker to use for training why do you offer on your website to accommodate athletes that only have that rather than insist on power? The OP is saying that his MHR is higher than expected based on a formula. The thread title also seems to suggest that he is interested in training by using HR.

GeorgeBMac

MaxHR does change from person to person -- but my understanding is that it stays fairly constant in a reasonably fit person. But, yes, I agree that if there is a large change in fitness -- including a change in type of fitness (such as switching from an endurance athlete to a sprinter type or weight lifter) that it CAN affect MaxHR. (as couchtj pointed out) But I think that is unusual.

As for your comment "Which probably doesn't matter to your cardiologist. As long as you have some limit you are supposed to observe and he's happy with that, and you aren't having trouble and can still train some,"

You probably should not comment on things that you do not understand. First, my exercise advice comes from an exercise physiologist -- not a cardiologist. In addition, I have neither "trouble" nor "limits" -- cardiac or otherwise. Actually, the physiologist wants me to go harder and faster -- which I have done. When I started with him I was averaging about 70% of my MaxHR on an hour and a half ride. Now (conditions permitting) it is averaging around 80% -- which both he and I are satisfied with.

Carbonfiberboy 

Sorry - I assumed a cardiologist since you are training off MHR. Most coaches, trainers, etc., train clients off LTHR, since MHR is very difficult to observe and not particularly important for training. It's difficult to know exactly what's going on, physiologically. My possible MHR is 163, but I know my LTHR is 149. I had an easy week due to bad weather and my poor dietary choices, but in last night's spin class I sprinted up to 157. Had a good 6X5 weight workout after, raised some weights, so I guess I recovered from my poor choices.

This winter, during what was for me a very hard three hour ride, I've averaged 92% of LTHR. Reasonably hard is 87%.

GeorgeBMac

Yes, and that was actually my original point: performance training and trainers focus on LTHR (and related) -- partly because it is more measurable -- but mostly because it is the factor that is both most easily modified by training and has the most beneficial effects on performance.

But, IF your emphasis is more on general health and fitness (especially cardio and vascular fitness) rather than performance, then I think 'training' to the MaxHR is more beneficial.

And, yes, I agree with you that MaxHR is difficult to measure. As I understand it, a tread-mill type stress test is one of the few ways to get an accurate assessment -- but they are expensive. Plus their accuracy depends on the ability and willingness of the subject to take his heart rate up to its true maximum -- which is uncomfortable.

Mine was measured that way -- along with my VO2Max and VAT (ventilatory aerobic threshold -- which is related to LTHR but not the same). From those numbers (plus heart rate data that I supplied), plus the fact that it cleared me from any cardiac concerns, the exercise physiologist developed an exercise program that has met my needs. And, periodically, I touch base with him. For example, due to the bad weather this winter I switched from cycling to the treadmill and he evaluated what I was doing there and approved it. And, in May I will see him again where we will use the heart rate data I have accumulated and re-evaluate the plan. At some point we may re-do the stress test because the numbers there have probably changed considerably. But, in the meantime, the charts and graphs I give him showing my heart rate data gives him what he needs to evaluate how I am doing...

But, again, I agree with you that if my goal were to go faster and further on the bike, I would not be basing my training on MaxHR.