Training & Nutrition - Max Heart Rate?

I have read quite a bit on heart rates since I bought my heart rate monitor. I did the 220-age deal and came up with 166 for my 54 year old body. Since I started riding in June, I saw my 166 max heart rate after a few rides and weeks later saw 169 and eventually saw 172. Today I was trying to stay up with the racers in the bike club and got dropped at 32mph but not before I was able to hit 176 max heart rate. Now for those of you who understand all the heart rate stuff, my question is Was 176 really my max heart rate all the time and I was just not in good enough shape to reach it til today? I feel great and did not know I had reached 176 til I looked at the info on the watch and then the computer. I am excited that I am able to get 176 max today. :)

Glad you have a HRM, and it is working. My guess would be that your max heart rate is whatever your max is. I think that is how they would measure it in a lab. Get to your highest, and that is it.

I think we just had a similar diiscussion in another thread. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=139699&highlight=heart+rate)

In any event, why not take a moment and read this article - it may be very enlightening about MHR.

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf

Have a great day.

I also bought a HRM 3 weeks ago. (BTW I am 63, 190 lb., 74", 34 waist.)
Maximum HR seen in a reckless sprint up a long hill was 165. I did see stars in front of my eyes.
HR 120 gets me 20 MPH on the flats.
HR 140 is extreme exercise on a trainer.
Good news is that the recovery is fast. 15-30 minutes and I am back to 60.

Bad news is that I feel high as a kite and strung out to the point that I do not like it.
So I am cooling it and do a bit of interval training but try not to push the limit.
I thought I should share this.

I also bought a HRM 3 weeks ago. (BTW I am 63, 190 lb., 74", 34 waist.)
Maximum HR seen in a reckless sprint up a long hill was 165. I did see stars in front of my eyes.
HR 120 gets me 20 MPH on the flats.
HR 140 is extreme exercise on a trainer.
Good news is that the recovery is fast. 15-30 minutes and I am back to 60.

Bad news is that I feel high as a kite and strung out to the point that I do not like it.
So I am cooling it and do a bit of interval training but try not to push the limit.
I thought I should share this.

Hmm Will,
I have never seen stars or feel high. sounds like you are in pretty good shape. I am 54, 165lbs, 5'8" with 32 waist. Which is a lot better than I was 5 months ago..(was 202lbs then).I have not trained on a trainer as I only ride my bike outdoors but I know I will be wanting one soon.

Glad you have a HRM, and it is working. My guess would be that your max heart rate is whatever your max is. I think that is how they would measure it in a lab. Get to your highest, and that is it.

I think we just had a similar diiscussion in another thread. (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=139699&highlight=heart+rate)

In any event, why not take a moment and read this article - it may be very enlightening about MHR.

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf

Have a great day.

Thanks, I have read lots of stuff on heart rates but I now believe that today my max rate was 176 but could be higher tomorrow or the next day. I have stress tests from 99 and 03 and my max heart rates from those test is not close to 176. Is my max heart rate getting higher? I don't think so, I just think its getting healther or my body is and is allowing me to reach my true heart rate whatever that is. I am no expert but this is what I think today.

I have not trained on a trainer as I only ride my bike outdoors but I know I will be wanting one soon.

Got a CycleOps2 trainer. This thing can kill you. Much more difficult than road biking. I am bemused by the people who complain about boredom on a trainer. I cannot get bored because I am irritated that I cannot go 20 MPH on a trainer and believe me, have no trouble with 20 MPH on a flat road. So I will not rest until I can do 20 MPH on this d....n trainer.

Was tested at a university lab when I was 60 years old; did a max heart rate at 183; then a resting heart rate of 52.
Am a dozen years older now and for the first time hit a new low for resting pulse: 48 (and that was on the day I was informed I had cancer . . . oh well).
Weight 135, height 5'7", waist 30"
Ride tandem 5 days a week and single once a week. Average now around 120+ a week (down from 200 a week less than 10 years ago).
My motto: Growing old is not for sissies!

Was tested at a university lab when I was 60 years old; did a max heart rate at 183; then a resting heart rate of 52.
Am a dozen years older now and for the first time hit a new low for resting pulse: 48 (and that was on the day I was informed I had cancer . . . oh well).
Weight 135, height 5'7", waist 30"
Ride tandem 5 days a week and single once a week. Average now around 120+ a week (down from 200 a week less than 10 years ago).
My motto: Growing old is not for sissies!

So you are 72 now? I hope I can ride 120 miles a week when I get to where you are. Sorry to hear about your cancer, my wife has had breast cancer twice and is at 3 and a half years now since the last occurance. She works everyday and it has made me realize that we have to enjoy the time we are here. I don't know your details but I know quite a few cancer survivors.

THis is off topic but I wanted to post it for everyone. I was on the rails to trails site and you can find the trails in your state here
http://www.traillink.com/

Maybe there are some in your state to ride....

I started that previous thread a few weeks ago when I just purchased my HRM. I'm 54, 160lbs., 5'10" and I had never used a HRM before. Over the past couple of weeks I've been using my HRM almost everyday for running and biking.
Your maximum heartrate can only realistically be determined by a stress test given by a physician. Those formulas ar really meaningless because that do not take into consideration your physical condition and other factors. I think that your MHR is the point that you almost pass out which is why you should be tested at a doctors office if you really need to know your MHR.
Personally since I got my HRM, I have learned to lessen the intensity of my workouts. I was initially averaging about 180 BPM for my typical 25-30 minute runs. The problem is that a lot of times I was just too tired to workout the next day. I'm now lowering the intensity of my workouts a little and I can not only work out longer but I can now easily work out everyday and I feel better. I would never be without one now.
BTW, what kind did you get?

I started that previous thread a few weeks ago when I just purchased my HRM. I'm 54, 160lbs., 5'10" and I had never used a HRM before. Over the past couple of weeks I've been using my HRM almost everyday for running and biking.
Your maximum heartrate can only realistically be determined by a stress test given by a physician. Those formulas ar really meaningless because that do not take into consideration your physical condition and other factors. I think that your MHR is the point that you almost pass out which is why you should be tested at a doctors office if you really need to know your MHR.
Personally since I got my HRM, I have learned to lessen the intensity of my workouts. I was initially averaging about 180 BPM for my typical 25-30 minute runs. The problem is that a lot of times I was just too tired to workout the next day. I'm now lowering the intensity of my workouts a little and I can not only work out longer but I can now easily work out everyday and I feel better. I would never be without one now.
BTW, what kind did you get?


I have a Garmin 301 and a Polar S725 which I won in a contest. The Garmin is simple and I have not figured out the Polar yet but I did do the fitness test in the Polar and scored 55 on it yesterday. I am never without mine either.

Every ones heart rate is different. I am 58- 220 - age = 162, but with adjustments have found I can get up to 165 on hard bits of the trail That should be my max and if I get to that, it is definitely slow down and recover time. So why is it that just recently I saw 179 when staying in front of a youngster up a short sharp hill. I frequently find that at some point in a ride, I have gone over 170 at some point, and It has not been recovery time- slow down for a bit to catch the breath or if I'm lucky, put no effort in on the downhill that follows.


Heart rates are different from person to person. Fitness rates are different from person to person. I do use an HRM but no longer use it as a guide keep my HR under control. All I use it for is an indicator as to how hard I am working on a ride. Constantly up above 150 and slow a bit, not reaching 140 and put a bit more effort in. That way I know that I will finish a ride and still feel good at the end. Unless it is less than a 20miler where I know I can push harder, or The hill is nearly done, but more effort is required.

Your maximum heart rate is what you can reach- but a better way of looking at it is how high can it go constantly before the body starts to give out. For me that is 160. After 5 minutes at this rate up hills I will be slowing Down, or if it is a very long hill 155 after 10 minutes.

I am 55 , 5'10" , 200# with a 33" waist. My resting heart rate is upper40's. My max.is in the 190's during a race but have to really struggle to reach that when training by myself. I visited with my doctor about this and was told to just keep riding at the intensity level that I am .
I normally train in the 160's.

How many of you notice that, on some days, you just can't get up to your max (whatever it is) because your legs just won't let you? I'm 54 5'9" and 150lbs. I ride six days/week about 30 miles/day on average. On the days I can't ride, I use the trainer.

I figure my max is in the 175 area. I agree however, that race situations (I don't race but ride with guys who do on occasion) I get the adrenalin up and I then find I have more in me and can get a higher rate. I train however, in the 150's and get into intervals where I go up to 165 or higher. There are days, however, when I get into big gears (I define a big gear as a 53 by 14, 13 or 12) that my legs just won't let me get my heart rate up to 170. Yesterday, I was spent out in a 53/14 and did not get above 163...a heart rate that I can easily achieve when spinning smaller gears.

My guess is that I need to do more interval training. Any thoughts on this?

I think there is still a lot we can learn about ourselve including our heart rate. My max heart rate is 176 since the other day when I was trying to stay up with the racers. I am looking at a print out of a 1999 stress report where I was only able to reach 146 max. The report says the test was stopped because of leg fatigue. I took another test in 03 and was able to finish that one and it said my max was 161. These test used a treadmill and I think I will look for someone to get a test done using a cycle. I asked my doctor if I could get another test and he said he could not pescribe one since I was in good health and the insurance would not pay for one without a reason. I think I may find if I had a wildcat chasing me I might be able to reach 180bpm...lol But I think we are all ahead of the game by monitoring our hearts with these monitors as we will see any changes before the average person would and be able to do something about it.

I think there is still a lot we can learn about ourselve including our heart rate. My max heart rate is 176 since the other day when I was trying to stay up with the racers. I am looking at a print out of a 1999 stress report where I was only able to reach 146 max. The report says the test was stopped because of leg fatigue. I took another test in 03 and was able to finish that one and it said my max was 161. These test used a treadmill and I think I will look for someone to get a test done using a cycle. I asked my doctor if I could get another test and he said he could not pescribe one since I was in good health and the insurance would not pay for one without a reason. I think I may find if I had a wildcat chasing me I might be able to reach 180bpm...lol But I think we are all ahead of the game by monitoring our hearts with these monitors as we will see any changes before the average person would and be able to do something about it.

Incidentally, you MHR is sport specific.

Check out books on heart rate training by Edmund Burke - he ended up dying of heart problems!

Interesting thread, and thanks to the folks posting their training ranges, also. I barely break a sweat in the 'suggested' range, so it's nice to see I'm not the only one who keeps their HR higher than the generally suggested rate on training rides. At an effort that feels like work, but like GOOD work which will let me train comfortably the next day, my HR generally runs between 155 and 165. Which is funny, because my max heart rate is predicted-by-formula to be 170. Took me a while to throw the predictions out the window and just go with what feels right. Now my two main uses of the HRM are to motivate myself to keep going when I'm having a bad day, or to pace myself on long ride day so I don't finish totally wrecked.

Dagna

"Cylcling Over 50" has several methods (short of spending a lot of money) for determining MHR. Of note, everything I have read on the subject agrees that it (and VO2 max) is genetically fixed. How close and for how you can come to MRH and still remain below your lactate threshold is not. Check out the book again and you'll find what you are looking for.

"Cylcling Over 50" has several methods (short of spending a lot of money) for determining MHR. Of note, everything I have read on the subject agrees that it (and VO2 max) is genetically fixed. How close and for how you can come to MRH and still remain below your lactate threshold is not. Check out the book again and you'll find what you are looking for.



I am still reading cycling over 50 and its a very good book. I would like to go to a place that does test for cycling so I can know my max heart rate (for the test) for cycling and vo max, however I test it everyday riding and have a pretty good idea where it is. I appreciate all the post here and all the forums I visit and always find out something new with each visit.

Was tested at a university lab when I was 60 years old; did a max heart rate at 183; then a resting heart rate of 52.
Am a dozen years older now and for the first time hit a new low for resting pulse: 48 (and that was on the day I was informed I had cancer . . . oh well).
Weight 135, height 5'7", waist 30"
Ride tandem 5 days a week and single once a week. Average now around 120+ a week (down from 200 a week less than 10 years ago).
My motto: Growing old is not for sissies!

Hey! You're doing GREAT. As an oncology nurse I can tell you first hand that a good, healthy outlook on life matters..... but what matters more is the condition of the body that the cancer has invaded. This is not to say that every person that is in tip-top condition will beat cancer, but it is to say that if you are in tip-top condition (which it sounds like you ARE) you will have a much better chance at coming out on the winning end of the equation. I wish you the best!
P.S. Love your motto!! I'm 61 and know for a fact that growing old is not for sissies.

Incidentally, you MHR is sport specific.

Check out books on heart rate training by Edmund Burke - he ended up dying of heart problems!
As did James Fixx, the runner guru. He died of a heart attack while he was running. Remember that? And he was definitely younger than we are. All I'm trying to say is that we can't predict anything. Nothing is for sure. Just go with the odds. And the odds say you're better off making that heart of yours work for a living!

RE: James Fixx. Heart disease was prevalent in his family. And he was notorious for his very heart unhealthy eating habits. As I recall, Nathan Pritikin died of cancer but had a healthy heart. My father-in-law is 86 and relatively healthy.....no exercise and lots of heavy-on-the-fat, white bread diet all those years. Still...................

I'll go with MaryAnn on the odds. Most of us 50Plussers, who are fairly healthy and more active (maybe downright adventurous) than many of our peers, follow some fairly "healthy" life style choices.

Well, except for GrannyGear's addiction to Rocky Road ice cream.

Your maximum heart rate is what you can reach- but a better way of looking at it is how high can it go constantly before the body starts to give out. For me that is 160. After 5 minutes at this rate up hills I will be slowing Down, or if it is a very long hill 155 after 10 minutes.

I agree - your maximum heart rate it the max you can reach. The 220 - age is way off for many people.

I disagree about the how long can it go before the body starts to give out, with 5 or 10 minutes thrown out as a reasonable time to measure. Max heartrate is a max you can sustain for a VERY short period - like 5 - 10 seconds, NOT 5 - 10 minutes.

I am 55. My resting heart rate is in the low-to-mid 40s (attributable to a combination of 37 years of serious cycling/jogging/etc. and congenitally somewhat low thyroid function). I seem to be unable to push my heart rate above about 160, at which I don't feel faint, dizzy, or winded, and from which it still drops pretty fast when I stop exercising.

I am 55. My resting heart rate is in the low-to-mid 40s (attributable to a combination of 37 years of serious cycling/jogging/etc. and congenitally somewhat low thyroid function). I seem to be unable to push my heart rate above about 160, at which I don't feel faint, dizzy, or winded, and from which it still drops pretty fast when I stop exercising.

You may actually not be hitting MaxHR. After I got back from my injury just before Christmas '05, the HRM at the health club, in April, had me maxxin out at 160 also. However that number went up as I was able to continue 'conditioning' work over the summer months in 05. My lower muscle strength and reduced aerobic capacity might have been responsible for that - I'm not sure. A question of physio would be - "What causes the heart to increase rate? Oxygen level in the blood, muscle chemistry, combination of factors? what?" (do we really know that much?
Fact is in April '05 I COULD NOT exceed 162 bpm, no way, no how. Now, today, the same HRM in the health club records a steady 192, for 30 sec sprints and high 160s for longer extended efforts (in minutes). Those numbers are confirmed by a HRM I started using a month ago while actually road riding.
The point being that the 'number', you note above, may or may not be your actuall MaxHR. Something in your conditioning may be holding you at bpm.
How important is MaxHR in producing some level of physical activity? It doesn't seem to correlate that much. The "science of Lance" stated his MaxHR at a lower number than I fully expected (don;t remember it offhand, so I won;t blurt out something erroneous). A number that is prolly exceeded by many of the TDF peleton members - so it obviously hasn't hampered him to be on the lower end for his group.
They also noted a 'pumping' volume, which however was prodigious - and that would sensibly be a HUGE factor.

You might just have the heart of a bull, and not need as many bumps as we do. :)

...know for a fact that growing old is not for sissies.
Even for sissies like me, it beats the alternative....

"Cylcling Over 50" has several methods (short of spending a lot of money) for determining MHR. Of note, everything I have read on the subject agrees that it (and VO2 max) is genetically fixed. How close and for how you can come to MRH and still remain below your lactate threshold is not. Check out the book again and you'll find what you are looking for.

Is this the book you are talking about?

Cycling Past 50 by Joe Friel (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0880117370/qid=1140207603/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-3434004-1339956?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)

Thanks,
Dogbait

Here is another excellent book on HRM - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0915297256/002-4832047-9512810?v=glance&n=283155

It is primarily for runners. The basic premise is that most people train too hard on their easy days and too easy on their hard days. I used his program to qualify for the Boston Marathon at 52.

And he would agree with your original premise - whatever the highest number is on your HRM at any time IS your max rate.

This thread has been inactive so I hope someone will reply.
My Sports MD declared me in excellent condition for my 64 years. He suggested a max HR of 140 for a sustained effort. Such an effort is on a Cyleops Fl2 trainer at 17.5 MPH for 2 hours at 90 RPM with 39/16 gears. That generates HR 140++ steady more or less for 2 hrs. I use a strong fan but still sweat profusely. I could push higher but I am concerned of doing damage to my system.
I am interested in comments by someone near my age. I would like to sustain higher speeds even on a trainer. I am thinking that the trainer simulates a modest incline?
As I said in another post, I have no trouble with 20 MPH on a flat road.

In any event, why not take a moment and read this article - it may be very enlightening about MHR.

http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf


Interesting article. The authors say that theres is no real research backing up the 220-age formula and that the best research to date says that the formula 205.8-0.685(age) is closer, but even it does not correlate very well with VO2max which is what you really want to know. The article says some extensive research needs to be done to derive a formula that does not have a big error. Anyway, in case you are interested, I calculated the HRmax that the article says are the best we have so far (labeled "New") compared to the old 220-age formula. Guess what: for the 35-55 crowd, the correlation is very good..... Of course, what HRmax actually means and how useful it is seems to be an open debate among exercise physiologist researchers. Hope you find this useful.

Age New 220-Age difference
25 189 195 -6
30 185 190 -5
35 182 185 -3
40 178 180 -2
45 175 175 0
50 172 170 2
55 168 165 3
60 165 160 5
65 161 155 6
70 158 150 8
75 154 145 9
80 151 140 11
85 148 135 13
90 144 130 14
95 141 125 16
100 137 120 17

In any event, why not take a moment and read this article - it may be very enlightening about MHR.
http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf



I did read this article and find no trouble understanding it. My max. HR seems to be 165 and calculated at ---205.8 - (0.685*age) = ~162---------

My question to someone is: Is doing sustained exercise near the max HR a good thing or may be not?
Some exercise enthusiasts grumbled about Heart enlargement in discussions to me.
Whatever I learn here will be discussed with Doctors also.
Funny thing is, the Doctors I know of are in pretty bad physical shape. Go figure. How can anyone take an overweight, smoking Doctors health advise serious?

I think the mHR calc is a good place to start and then just monitor how your feeling while you ride. I generally don't look at bpm just %mHR. I find when I start working out I need to be at 80% to get recovery effect and I start feeling I'm at my limit at about 97%. After an hour or so riding however I can easily maintain a 94% and feel recovery affects at 90%. In the end I think you have to calibrate your HRM to how you feel.

I think the mHR calc is a good place to start and then just monitor how your feeling while you ride. I generally don't look at bpm just %mHR. I find when I start working out I need to be at 80% to get recovery effect and I start feeling I'm at my limit at about 97%. After an hour or so riding however I can easily maintain a 94% and feel recovery affects at 90%. In the end I think you have to calibrate your HRM to how you feel.

Thanks, I will take it to heart (no pun intended)
We are all a product of our experiences. One of my is a friend, who at age 45 started heavy exercise after he abused his body with chain smoking. Long story short, he is now in a coma for 15 years following a bike trip.

I'm still a little confused. I'm faily new to cycling, I only started last summer. I ride around our local lake 10 miles a couple times a week then hit the trails on the weekend, 6-11 miles. I just got my heart rate monitor last week and did a ride around the lake. My heart rate remained mostly constant at 185 throughout the ride. According to the 205.8 - (0.685*age) = 181.8 I was running over my max for the entire ride. Then two days later I road a 9 mile loop near my house that I call my hill workouts. My HR maxxed at 202. I'm I pushing it just to hard or are my numbers off?

ps. I'm 35, 5ft 7in 170lbs, 32 in waist

All,

You can not ride at your max HR for more than a minute or so even if you are in tip-top shape. In fact, unless you are a very fit bike racer I doubt you'd get within 5 beats of your max HR, nor will you be able to ride for any length of time at 95% of your actual MHR. If you think you can it's because your estimated MHR is too low. FWIW, my MHR is 199-200 and I'm 46 years old. So much for the estimates, eh?

Even during MHR tests done during a stress test you will sometimes be stopped before you actually get to your MHR because you will be breathing so hard and near collapse that the tester doesn't want to risk what might happen to you at your MHR, and they also know they don't really need to know what your actual MHR is anyway. It's a mostly useless number.

Toss out the MHR estimates because they're inaccurate and MHR is not a sound basis for training intensities. Do some Google searches on "lactate threshold training". Learn also about how everyone's LT HR is a different percentage of their MHR. (Then you will know why MHR is a poor way of determining your training intensity zones.)

Then do the tests suggested there and in books about training to determine your approximate HR at your lactate threhsold or your HR at your functional threshold. Then use this HR number to establish your other training intensity zones.

Test as recommended by the American College of Sports:
>after selecting an activity, warm up adequately at a moderate intensity for at least 5 minutes.
>Begin to increse your heart rate 5 bpm every 15 seconds until you reach your maximal intensity level.
>Continue until either the exercise is too uncomfortable or motor coordination becomes difficult and immediately slow down or decrese intensity
>Immediately after finishing note your HR and add 5 to 10 bpm to that number for an estimate MHR

I did this test with Koffee Brown a few years ago and we recorded my Max HR as 195 at age 38

Test as recommended by the American College of Sports:
>after selecting an activity, warm up adequately at a moderate intensity for at least 5 minutes.
>Begin to increse your heart rate 5 bpm every 15 seconds until you reach your maximal intensity level.
>Continue until either the exercise is too uncomfortable or motor coordination becomes difficult and immediately slow down or decrese intensity
>Immediately after finishing note your HR and add 5 to 10 bpm to that number for an estimate MHR

I did this test with Koffee Brown a few years ago and we recorded my Max HR as 195 at age 38

FWW. I did such a test also. Age 64. At HR 165 "the exercise became too uncomfortable and motor coordination became difficult".
This is not too far off the calculated max HR of 162 (and you say) + 5 = 167.

May I ask you a question. Is sustained exercise of 150 adviseable (in your opinion) with a max HR as stated?

I agree with WarrenG. I'm 51, 5' 10.5" 171lbs. (Just dropped 20 pounds last summer to climb hills better with the younger riders!) I'd had an HR monitor for several years. I've seen 201 and hit 200 several times. I can maintain 180 bpm on a steady climb for 30-45 minutes. I regularly hit 190 and occasionally 195+bpm. I figure my real max is the 200 or so I have seen on rare occasions. I think my resting HR is about 54. That old formula has no basis in fact. While I have read that VO2 max is fixed, you can still change your lactate threashold with training. Hurts, but works. I have found the HR monitor useful in mtb races I've done, where I had visible proof I had to back off, and in centuries where I also could see that I needed to back down or risk blowing up later. I've also seen my HR max on a particular ride drift lower as I got more tired. That is, I just couldn't put out the sustained effort to keep the HR higher as the ride--and climb--went on.

My question to someone is: Is doing sustained exercise near the max HR a good thing or may be not?I don't see how that's even possible. There's no way to hold a steady HR above LT, or else that's your real LT. Once you increase your exertion above LT, your HR will steadily increase to max-HR. That last 5-10bpm before max-HR will require a 100% sprint-level effort to increase to max-HR. So no, there's no way to sustain those kinds of exertions anyway...

I don't see how that's even possible. There's no way to hold a steady HR above LT, or else that's your real LT. Once you increase your exertion above LT, your HR will steadily increase to max-HR. That last 5-10bpm before max-HR will require a 100% sprint-level effort to increase to max-HR. So no, there's no way to sustain those kinds of exertions anyway...

Dannon:
You have given me/us often good advise. I do not know nearly enough about this subject. I am training on a Cycleops fluid 2 trainer and trying to follow a training schedule as you see below. As you see, at 100 RPM, 20.2 MPH my HR reached 160 after 3 minutes.
My Sports Doctor told me that Hr 140 is good for sustained activity at my age of 64.
My question here is: Can this be pushed a bit or am I risking damage?

Gears = 39 x 21, RPM = 100, MPH = ~15.0, HR = 100, Time = 3 Min.
Gears = 39 x 18, RPM = 100, MPH = ~17.0, HR = 125, Time = 3 Min. (That is my normal training speed on a trainer for two hours)
Gears = 39 x 16, RPM = 100, MPH = ~19.5, HR = 150, Time = 3 Min.

Gears = 53 x 21, RPM =100, MPH = ~20.2, HR = 160, Time = 3 Min. (I do not want to do this too often)
Gears = 53 x 18, RPM =_80, MPH = ~18.8, HR = 140, Time = 3 Min.
Gears = 53 x 16, RPM =_70, MPH = ~18.6, HR = 140, Time = 3 Min.
Gears = 53 x 14, RPM =_60, MPH = ~18.2, HR = 140, Time = 3 Min. (That is out of saddle, every ten minutes on my regular training ride)

Dannon:
You have given me/us often good advise. I do not know nearly enough about this subject. I am training on a Cycleops fluid 2 trainer and trying to follow a training schedule as you see below. As you see, at 100 RPM, 20.2 MPH my HR reached 160 after 3 minutes.
My Sports Doctor told me that Hr 140 is good for sustained activity at my age of 64.
My question here is: Can this be pushed a bit or am I risking damage?

Gears = 39 x 21, RPM = 100, MPH = ~15.0, HR = 100, Time = 3 Min.
Gears = 39 x 18, RPM = 100, MPH = ~17.0, HR = 125, Time = 3 Min. (That is my normal training speed on a trainer for two hours)
Gears = 39 x 16, RPM = 100, MPH = ~19.5, HR = 150, Time = 3 Min.

Gears = 53 x 21, RPM =100, MPH = ~20.2, HR = 160, Time = 3 Min. (I do not want to do this too often)
Gears = 53 x 18, RPM =_80, MPH = ~18.8, HR = 140, Time = 3 Min.
Gears = 53 x 16, RPM =_70, MPH = ~18.6, HR = 140, Time = 3 Min.
Gears = 53 x 14, RPM =_60, MPH = ~18.2, HR = 140, Time = 3 Min. (That is out of saddle, every ten minutes on my regular training ride)
if you have no heart problems, you shouldn't damage anything. this is not a question for DANNON. this is something you should address with a cardiologist or your primary doctor. although, if you have not yet been safely stressed on an ECG, they would probably be hesitant to say

i just got on a treadmil and ran so hard until i couldnt run any more to determine my MHR. and it was 191. i am 32, 6'3'', 218 lbs. later.

if you have no heart problems, you shouldn't damage anything. this is not a question for DANNON. this is something you should address with a cardiologist or your primary doctor. although, if you have not yet been safely stressed on an ECG, they would probably be hesitant to say

Fair enough. Thanks for responding.
Will

Great thread and equally great responses. Let me add a few tidbits from my experience. I said this in a 50+ response but it applies here also. "Don't be a slave to your Heart-Rate monitor; it's only a tool that should be refered to when needed". The best formula for any fitness training (cycling, running, cross training, etc.) is how you feel for the workout you're participating in, and that feeling will change often, even during the workout period, therefore the numbers will vary on your monitor for the same effort.

220-age formula is silly, you all have gone into it so I won't. My stats are: 65 years of age, 190 max HR, 48 resting HR; put that into the formula and see where it reads. Measuring to find max HR varies. When I was into serious running we found it by doing repeat laps on a 1/4 mile track, easy one lap followed by flat out the next (checking our monitor each lap), keep repeating that sequence until you puke, fall over, or pass out. Not really but you get the drift. Don't do it alone, have running mates to watch you. I teach a spinning HR class that shows max HR to be much lower than outside max. Your max HR shouldn't change; it is genetically established, but your resting will lower as you become fitter.

Now I have a max, so what do I do with it? Calculate the various percentages for your training zones, say upper limit of aerobic, anearobic threshold, and others 65%, 75%, 85% etc. and how you feel for each zone. Don't attempt to reach your max, you're pushing yourself too hard and for what reason, and you will start doing some damage. If you want to go anaerobic occasionally then establish what I call a working max HR which will vary depending on inside or outside workouts. Running outside will be higher, cycling outside a little lower and cycling indoor/spinning will be lower still. Re-establish your % zones.

Whatever you do, do with smarts and enjoy it; we're only here on this journey once.

Don't attempt to reach your max, you're pushing yourself too hard and for what reason, and you will start doing some damage.
Whatever you do, do with smarts and enjoy it; we're only here on this journey once.

Clipin:
I isolated your sentence which concerns me. I have not done SERIOUS cycling except the last two or so years. So I am fishing around for information from bikers who have done much more than I have time left to do.
What damage are you talking about, please?

Your max HR shouldn't change; it is genetically established,

Everything I have ever read says that your max heart rate is sports specific, and DOES change at least in regards to that particular sport or activity. From Sally Edwards:

http://www.virginactive.co.za/get_healthy/fit_periodized_cycling_2.htm


This may sound strange, but it’s true: maximum heart rate is sport specific. For example, triathletes must measure their maximum heart rate in each of their sports. Maximum heart rate in swimming is not necessarily the same as it is for running or cycling. Different sports activities use different muscle groups that place different demands on your cardiovascular system. For example, running uses upper and lower muscles in the body, whereas cycling uses mostly lower body muscles. Thus, a running maximum heart rate is generally slightly higher than a cycling maximum heart rate because running uses more muscles. If you train in different sports, you need to take sub-max tests for each sport.

and others

http://www.cptips.com/hrmntr.htm


Another key point is maximum heart rates are "sport specific" i.e. they vary from one sport to another. For a given rate of oxygen consumption, weight bearing activities such as running raise the heart rate more than cycling (part of your weight is supported by the bike). So you cannot use your maximum heart rate from running to plan a cycling training program without risking overtraining.

Londeree and Moeschberger also looked at other variables to see if they had any effect on the MHR. They found that neither sex or race make any difference but they did find that the MHR was effected by the activity and levels of fitness.

Studies have shown that MHR on a treadmill is consistently 5-6 beats higher than on a bicycle ergometer and 2-3 beats higher on a rowing ergometer. Heart rates while swimming are significantly lower, around 14 bpm, than for treadmill running. Elite endurance athletes and moderately trained individuals will have a MHR 3 or 4 beats slower than a sedentary individual. It was also found that well trained over 50s are likely to have a higher MHR than that which is average for their age.





Don't attempt to reach your max, you're pushing yourself too hard and for what reason, and you will start doing some damage.

Could you provide some sites, cites or references for that statement?

Sources disagree with you.

http://www.sportsdoctor.com/articles/heart_rate.html


It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to damage a healthy heart with exercise. You do not burn or otherwise damage healthy heart muscle by exceeding 90 percent of your estimated maximum heart rate (MHR). Otherwise, there would be many more elite athletes, who daily push their heart rate to extremes, suffering heart damage.

http://www.drmirkin.com/public/ezine042504.html


Exercise Does Not Damage Heart Muscle

A recent study from Freiburg University in Germany shows that hard exercise does not damage a healthy heart. To improve for athletic competition, all athletes must suffer skeletal muscle damage. Without this damage their muscles will not grow and they will not become stronger. World-class competitive bicycle racers ride at close to their maximum heart rate for five to seven hours a day. Many researchers have been concerned that this very hard riding would damage their heart muscle as well as their skeletal muscles.

When muscles are damaged, they release enzymes into the blood stream. This study shows that the heart muscle is not damaged the way that skeletal muscles are (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, October 2003). Post exercise electrocardiograms and echocardiograms were normal as were blood levels of heart-specific enzymes, creatine kinase, creatine kinase MB and myoglobin. However, older bicycle racers did have a rise in another enzyme, brain natriuretic peptide, that is associated with heart function. The authors felt that this shows that older athletes may not adequately empty their heart's ventricles during the diastolic relaxation phase, and the increased pressure stretches the heart muscles to raise blood levels of this hormone.

A suggestion I might offer is to enter a competitive event or two where you will be pushed hard, as a method of finding MHR. At age 38, my estimated MHR using 220-age formula is 182. I trained at this level starting last August to get some base mileage going.

Enterred a few training criteriums this past January (warm here in Florida) where I got my HR up to 188 in two separate races...adjusted MHR and training zones to this level.

During my first "real" criterium in Cat 5, HR got up to 190...adjusted MHR and training zones to this level. Started doing 20 minute intervals at what I thought should be my lactate threshold (89%-93% of MHR), 170-177.

This past weekend did a competitive Time Trial, 7 miles, finished in 17:24. Got HR up to 192 and maintained a consistent HR of 181-185 for the entire ride (was actually a little frightened at seeing such a high level, but I was able to keep going). For now, I will adjust MHR to 192 and use the 178-182 range for my 15-20 minute intervals. This may not correlate with suggestions about LT levels provided by Friel, Carmichael, etc., but it seems to work for me.

I don't have the $ for power equipment, and haven't done the 30 minute time trials to determine a truer test of "Functional" or "Lactate" Threshold (worried about over-stressing knees since I am racing on weekends), so I will keep using MHR for now. As my results indicate, it may take a while to find one's TRUE MHR, but so long as one is within a few beats +/-, it should be OK. Doing an internal a couple beats higher or lower than a TRUE range probably won't make the difference between a win or a DNF...at least not at my level. Even with my continually adjusted MHR and zones, I am still getting stronger, lighter, faster, and am placing well.

I think an earlier poster had it right...don't become a slave to the HR monitor. I actually find it most useful on my easy/endurance rides...i.e., helps me keep my HR below 80%...without it, I'd be feeling all strong and good, start hammering when I shouldn't, and become over-trained before long.

Just my .02

Mark

You guys and gals are vultures. You jump on every word in isolation not in the context of the idea. (that's said with a smile and chuckle)

I did not say, nor imply, we would damge our heart muscle, but we can sure damage or injure a heck of a lot of other phsyological and psychological stuff. (you make the list based on your own experiences). If we continually push ourselves to extremes something is going to happen. If we do it with smarts we improve, if not we get injured. All I was saying in response to the original request is what is max HR, how to measure it, and how to use the information effectively, with a few caveats.

I was told max HR was genetic; sorry I don't recall the source (I will be more specific in the future), but I have been mechanically tested 6 time in the last 20 years (fit, motivated, relaxed, etc.) and the max HR number was the same. I am very aware that it is sports/activity specific, that's why I said, and use, "working max" when measuring max HR during fitness training or competition. Finding what your max HR is for your activity and basing your % goals on it is the most effective method.

But I will still question the need to continually push oneself to maximum heart rate; after all the journey is far more important than the destination.

You guys and gals are vultures. You jump on every word in isolation not in the context of the idea. (that's said with a smile and chuckle)

I did not say, nor imply, we would damge our heart muscle, but we can sure damage or injure a heck of a lot of other phsyological and psychological stuff. (you make the list based on your own experiences). If we continually push ourselves to extremes something is going to happen. If we do it with smarts we improve, if not we get injured. All I was saying in response to the original request is what is max HR, how to measure it, and how to use the information effectively, with a few caveats.

I was told max HR was genetic; sorry I don't recall the source (I will be more specific in the future), but I have been mechanically tested 6 time in the last 20 years (fit, motivated, relaxed, etc.) and the max HR number was the same. I am very aware that it is sports/activity specific, that's why I said, and use, "working max" when measuring max HR during fitness training or competition. Finding what your max HR is for your activity and basing your % goals on it is the most effective method.

But I will still question the need to continually push oneself to maximum heart rate; after all the journey is far more important than the destination.

It was 3am, and I wasn't sleeping well. Turned on the computer to get my mind off of other things. So, I saw your - what seemed to me at 3am - "Blanket" statement, and I reacted as I often do to blanket statements - I tend to pick them apart. At 8am I would have not done that. There is a lesson there somewhere, but I don't know what it is! :D

Sorry!

It was 3am, and I wasn't sleeping well. Turned on the computer to get my mind off of other things. So, I saw your - what seemed to me at 3am - "Blanket" statement, and I reacted as I often do to blanket statements - I tend to pick them apart. At 8am I would have not done that. There is a lesson there somewhere, but I don't know what it is! :D

Sorry!

Denver, no appology needed and none expected. I too can be pretty snappy at times, but I do appreciate a sharp retort when someone thinks it's needed. Those of us who have been around the track enough times know our limits; it's the others on the forum that are asking for advice because they are just getting started or are in need of clarification on a subject. No punches need to be pulled and no spamming allowed, just good advice and a little ribbing doesn't hurt.

I'm going riding tomorrow even if it's only at the freezing mark here in Toronto.

Quote by clipin:
But I will still question the need to continually push oneself to maximum heart rate; after all the journey is far more important than the destination.
Those of us who have been around the track enough times know our limits; it's the others on the forum that are asking for advice because they are just getting started or are in need of clarification on a subject. No punches need to be pulled and no spamming allowed, just good advice and a little ribbing doesn't hurt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clipin and Denver:
I am not trying to push continually to a maximum heart rate.
I have been biking for 15 years (or so) at a leasurly pace on long distance trails. 100 miles in 8 to ten hours.
Now I have decided to participate in a group ride at 100 miles in six (6) hours for 27 days.
I am checking if there is experience out there for doing such a thing. I am training for it and cannot afford injury. Denver's comments are useful. It seems there is no harm (assuming a healthy heart) in pushing things a bit. I am thinking HR 150 or so. I have done that and feel OK. Done that with out of saddle biking.