Fifty Plus (50+) - Maximum heart-rate formula is totally bogus

With the help of the internet many things that are patently false and based on nothing get repeated and quoted to the point where they are everywhere and all too often taken as true. Case in point: Max heart-rate = 220 minus your age. http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/healthtool-target-heart-rate-calculator for just one example.

Yesterday I rode up Wilke Street in Austin. It gets progressively steeper and tops out at well over over a 20% grade as calculated by my GPS. I glanced down at my heart monitor and it said 173. According to the formula my max is 157 as I am 63 years old. My real max is probably more than that as I was only motivated by male testosterone-fueled ego to show my personal trainer who was on the ride with me that I could get to the top without stopping. (He got to the top non-stop also, but, unlike me, had to zig-zag to do it. LOL) If I was riding somewhere with a snarling pit bull nipping at my legs my maximum heart rate would probably be a few more points yet.

I am happy to report that my trainer does NOT have one of those bogus heart-rate charts posted in his gym.

Probably preaching to the choir here.

Don in Austin

Amen brother. That'll preach.

First of all- find your own personal max HR.

Till you do- find a system that will give you an indicator of the region it could be in.

Pre 99 I used the 220 - age to find my max. At 50 I could get to165 but I could push to 172 but that was get off the bike time before I fell off it. Then I had to have a stress test at 54 and my max was 165. Then at 60 I could still reach 165 with the Get off the bike time at 172. I dare say that if I was at peak fitness I could still reach 172 but not in the current state I am in.

And I have a mate who is younger and fitter than me- He just disappears off into the distance with his hr at 135. But if he wants to go faster- he doesn't. His fall off the bike time is around 140

What I find more important is how long I can ride at a %age of my max HR. 80 to 85% and a metric is easy- and that includes the hills where I will go up to about 95%. A 100miler and I will not attack the hills unless I have to. But hit that max HR on a long ride and I have to spend time recovering from the exertion. Spend too long near max HR and I will be cutting the ride short.

What we think we know today is what those four generations from now will laugh at and say, "How could they have possibly believed that?" (I would offer "stretching" as an example. Should one stretch before or after exercise? Should one use static or ballistic stretching? Should one stretch at all?) Perhaps the formula for max heart rate (MHR) will continue to be refined in such a manner that in the future folks will know their own true MHR. For now, and for many people who are not as invested in physical training as many here, those bogus charts are simply a starting point and probably have some functional value. They at least introduce the concept that there is such a thing as MHR and that one can train purposefully using feedback from one's own body as one element.

There are more "accurate" formulas, but the formulas only fit to the average. Your individual mileage and HR may vary.

There are more "accurate" formulas, but the formulas only fit to the average. Your individual mileage and HR may vary.

I agree. They give a good starting point. One way to check max heart rate is to ride with a fast group and see what how high your heart rate goes. After a half dozen rides, you should have a good idea. I have heard that heart rate is also somewhat exercise specific. That is for the same person, running, cycling and rowing could all give different numbers.

Yes - if I used that forumla I would be about 30 YO. I used the method in Joe Feil's books to determine my max - probably not completely accurate but I redo it at least twice a year and it changes a little. Later in Dec I will have my first stress test - I am anxious to see what they say.

I think you will need to determine your max using a method that actually measures your ability and not some formula ment to for the average population - we all know you are far from average...

BTW I looked up Wilkie Rd and it indeed has a short killer hill in it. Usually when folks talk of sustained grades over 8% I am suspicious, most highway departments will only allow that for very short distances. Seems like yours goes for about 0.1 mile. with an honest 20% step in it of maybe 20 to 30 yards. We've got one like that as well here - never climbed it though. Maybe next year when I swap my 30 chain ring for a 26.

Yes - if I used that forumla I would be about 30 YO. I used the method in Joe Feil's books to determine my max - probably not completely accurate but I redo it at least twice a year and it changes a little. Later in Dec I will have my first stress test - I am anxious to see what they say.

I think you will need to determine your max using a method that actually measures your ability and not some formula ment to for the average population - we all know you are far from average...

BTW I looked up Wilkie Rd and it indeed has a short killer hill in it. Usually when folks talk of sustained grades over 8% I am suspicious, most highway departments will only allow that for very short distances. Seems like yours goes for about 0.1 mile. with an honest 20% step in it of maybe 20 to 30 yards. We've got one like that as well here - never climbed it though. Maybe next year when I swap my 30 chain ring for a 26.

Yep...its not too bad most of the way. As you go up you keep dropping to a lower and lower gear and losing speed. About the time you run out of speed and lower gears you face the 20%+ grade. Its just a stone's throw to the top but its still a b***h! Where did you look at Wilke Street that shows grades? I measured it with my GPS. The roadies around here ride Jester Blvd. It's more like a quarter mile at an average of over 13% as I recall. I have scoped it out but haven't ridden it yet.

Don in Austin

Both my wife and I have found that max heart rate needs these components to occur - fresh legs and heart, very high motivation, adrenaline, and high cadence. We log our highest heart rates at the start of races where there is an easy to moderate climb and everyone is killing it. Steep hills alone do not do seem to produce max heart rates.

Yep...its not too bad most of the way. As you go up you keep dropping to a lower and lower gear and losing speed. About the time you run out of speed and lower gears you face the 20%+ grade. Its just a stone's throw to the top but its still a b***h! Where did you look at Wilke Street that shows grades? I measured it with my GPS. The roadies around here ride Jester Blvd. It's more like a quarter mile at an average of over 13% as I recall. I have scoped it out but haven't ridden it yet.

Don in Austin


I will use the elevation profiles on mapmyride.com or bikeroutetoaster(my favorite but wasn't working tonight). If you zero in on a section you can get as close as 0.01 mile resolution.

I use it to check out the true grade of my hill climbs.

Try looking at Touareuna Rd, Scotia NY - this bad boy is so steep they don't plow it in the winter because they can't keep the plow from sliding off it. The 20% section approaches 0.2 miles and overall climbs 450' of elevation in it's 1.6 mile length. As I mentioned before - I can't claim it on my list of accomplished climbs, or even attempted - my road bike is just not geared for it, I might be able to accomplish it on my mtb though.

Google it up, and you will find at least 8 or 9 MHR formulas......I did, and the most conservative(lowest), for me was the220 minus age,it was 154 and the highest was 162...There is also a medical test to see what it is as well..Might also try a search in the Training forum
Bud

At the risk of seeming argumentative: 1. I think the 220-age formula was widely used before the internet. I swear I remember learning it in an exercise physiology class back in the 1970s, and 2. any formula you use will only be an approximation, will not fit someone who is not "average", and will thus be vulnerable to being declared "bogus".

AND... thanks to the internet it is pretty easy to find out that there are other formulas that may yield more accurate results. :deadhorse:

Both my wife and I have found that max heart rate needs these components to occur - fresh legs and heart, very high motivation, adrenaline, and high cadence. We log our highest heart rates at the start of races where there is an easy to moderate climb and everyone is killing it. Steep hills alone do not do seem to produce max heart rates. So then the popular formula is even more bogus! I was not fresh, and my cadence was almost at stall-out at the top of that steep hill yet I was 16 beats over my alleged maximum.

Don in Austin

At the risk of seeming argumentative: 1. I think the 220-age formula was widely used before the internet. I swear I remember learning it in an exercise physiology class back in the 1970s, and 2. any formula you use will only be an approximation, will not fit someone who is not "average", and will thus be vulnerable to being declared "bogus".

AND... thanks to the internet it is pretty easy to find out that there are other formulas that may yield more accurate results. :deadhorse:

I know the formula has been around a long time. The internet just makes it even easier for everybody to plagiarize or quote everybody else and spread dubious information. What I have read (on the internet :) :) ) leads me to believe that there is such a range of maximum hear-rate that formulas are pretty much useless. Anyway, I know mine is AT LEAST 173 and likely more.

Don in Austin

So then the popular formula is even more bogus! I was not fresh, and my cadence was almost at stall-out at the top of that steep hill yet I was 16 beats over my alleged maximum.

Don in Austin

The important metric in heart rate training is your lactate threshold. This is the maximum heart rate that you can hold for a long time - one hour. From that HR, you set your training zones.

The important metric in heart rate training is your lactate threshold. This is the maximum heart rate that you can hold for a long time - one hour. From that HR, you set your training zones.

Wow! One hour? I had somehow not heard that and I've read a lot of these posts. Interesting....

I'd worked out my max with formulas. Then I hit the hills and found they weren't right. I thought I'd found my max. Then I did an uphill three-mile time trial and discovered I'd spent most of time at 101% of what I though was my max. Formulas: meh.

Wow! One hour? I had somehow not heard that and I've read a lot of these posts. Interesting....

You can go to a lab and see what heart rate lactate starts appearing in your blood. For the sake of argument, let's say that is 160 bpm for 50+. What is useful is how long you can go at that heart rate without slowing down i.e. building up lactate in the blood. Generally, one should be able to go 1 hour. After one hour or some period of tim e, general fatigue sets in and power begins to drop and one starts slowing down. When I did the Diablo hill climb, I wanted to be below LT HR or FTP power. I knew I could not hold threshold power / heart rate for over an hour.

Edit: The key point is that it is possible to increase power at lactate threshold heart rate.

I've been trying to keep 85% of my maximum heart rate not my lactic acid level. I'm 69 and I do some sprints and short climbs and I get around 160 or so and I just went by that. 85% of 160 gave me around 128. When I'm riding I try to keep my heart rate at 125 or 130. When it's really hot out, like it is a lot down here that will go up to 130 to 140. My ride is usually 2 hours, but I can keep the same pace for 3 hours. Maybe I should kick it up some, but I don't want to beat, when I get done riding. Lazy I guess.
When I posted the formula a few times that was just to get in the ball park. Like this one.
http://www.machinehead-software.co.uk/

A lot of this is psychological. I was riding on my commute the other day and this really nice looking triathlete type passed me so I figured I would hang with her for a while just for fun. Managed to keep up with her for 20 minutes until our paths diverged and I didn't really feel over-taxed either. When I uploaded the data from the ride my heart was between 170 and 175 for that 20 minutes which really surprised me since the 220 - age gives me a max of 165. I'm not one of these people who ride for the exercise or train or anything like that so I don't think I could do that again on purpose but the testosterone auto pilot seems to do the trick. Now if I only has these women pass me often enough I would get my interval training and could start racing! ...

The maximum heart rate is when the physician injects some kind of cardiac drug that progressively speeds up your heart until you reach cardiac arrest and die.

Boy George: "Do You Really Want To Hurt Me?"

I guess I have been a participant in BFN 50+ too long. One MORE Max HR thread?? :cry::(:eek:

I guess I have been a participant in BFN 50+ too long. One MORE Max HR thread?? :cry::(:eek:

Yep

I guess I have been a participant in BFN 50+ too long. One MORE Max HR thread?? :cry::(:eek:

Agreed. To find your true max don't they have to hook you up to a bunch of wires in a lab with a bunch of sensors and computers ......... forget it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=9887

93 threads in 50+ forum referencing maximum heart rate!! And, admittedly, I started or commented on several.

By the way, advanced search is now working great for me.

Hey that's a good idea. Rather than ask a question on the forum do a search. Then nobody would have to ask or answer anything. I see a lot of post with the same question and I don't even look at them. Rather than comment on them. I don't even open the thread.:rolleyes:

Hey that's a good idea. Rather than ask a question on the forum do a search.

Right on!!

Actually, a search is always an interesting process. But, go ahead and ask the question

As I said, I've been around here too long. Getting repetitious - but that's my problem.

If you have arrived in this forum without a clear understanding of Max HR & AT and how personal they are to you, you've got some reading to do. Even if you have been into endurance sports, it is more important as we get older, that we keep track of where we are and push ourselves within parameters that we have built the base for. I recommend reading or re visiting: Serious Training for Endurance Athletes (Sleamaker, Browning) or, Bike for Life, How to Ride to 100 (Wallach).

If you are just getting into this area, get a stress test. You can go to a Sports Cardiologist to measure VO2 max and Anaerobic Threshold. Your insurance will still pay for most of it. We have allot to gain by being in shape and pushing ourselves but also allot to loose if we don't take advantage of training methods and the discipline to avoid injuries or worse. Here is an article by Herman Falsetti MD where someone who should have known better, bit off more than he should have and paid the price. And a couple other links FYI.

http://www.activesurvivor.org/resources/index.cfm?p=reading&id=62
http://www.drfalsetti.com/vo2max.html
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=80256

Put together a plan, it doesn't have to be very complex or on the computer, just something that works for you. Aerobic training builds endurance. Intervals and training above your AT build stamina and power but can result in more injuries if you haven't built the proper base or have other health issues.

If you have arrived in this forum without a clear understanding of Max HR & AT and how personal they are to you, you've got some reading to do. Even if you have been into endurance sports, it is more important as we get older, that we keep track of where we are and push ourselves within parameters that we have built the base for. I recommend reading or re visiting: Serious Training for Endurance Athletes (Sleamaker, Browning) or, Bike for Life, How to Ride to 100 (Wallach).



Purpose of the 50+ Forum:

"Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling."

Some of us just like to go for a bicycle ride, enjoy the scenery, meet folks, relieve other tensions in our lives and get a bit of physical fitness.

We don't want to be a Type A rider!! We've got that all over the place in the rest of our lives.

We ride for SMILES not miles.

And, that is an acceptable reason for partricipating on the 50+ forum.

With the help of the internet many things that are patently false and based on nothing get repeated and quoted to the point where they are everywhere and all too often taken as true. Case in point: Max heart-rate = 220 minus your age. http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/healthtool-target-heart-rate-calculator for just one example.

Don in Austin

Don, it's pretty obvious how you feel about the 220 - age formula; the only issue I have with your statement is that it is just as sweeping as the perception of the formula you verbally trash.

ANYONE with 3 digits of IQ will know that's not set in stone; unfortunately, there are way too many folks running around who just don't get it.

As it happens, the formula is pretty accurate for me. So 'dubious' is a bit much.

Congrats on being the 'curve-breaker'; keep pushin'!

Dnvrfox:

One of the best things about cycling is that its an inclusive sport. Whatever our motivation the smiles are what keep us each happy and healthy. I'm glad you were interested enough to read a post related to heart rate, because its far from something for 'redliners' to brag about. It is unique to each individual and tuning into yours can be a part of a smart health strategy :).

Well, I would not call the formula "bogus". It merely gives a very crude estimation.

Generally, I have used a rule of thumb approach for max heart rate which was just to go with a group for an intense ride and see what my max heart rate was and do it x number of times. Most of the time, the max heart rate will fall in a pretty normal range.

It is an admittedly crude approach.

Anymore though, I do not use a heart rate monitor whilst I am riding. I do find that they are invaluable for spinning or wind training. In those situations, I find the heart rate monitor as an good indication of the intensity of my work out.

I wish I could remember where I read this, but IIRC, there was never much in the way of data to support this formula. It was just a rough estimate based on a very small sample size (or perhaps based on someone's "experience"). It has long been know that it is completely inadequate to describe highly active people (and dangerous to use since some people have much lower max HR than the formula would predict).

My max HR is about 190, close to 20 bpm higher than the formula predicts. Do some stress tests. Don't rely on folk wisdom when your life or health may be on the line.

BTW: I never hit my max HR while cycling. I can find it pretty quickly running hills tho.

Dnvrfox:

One of the best things about cycling is that its an inclusive sport. Whatever our motivation the smiles are what keep us each happy and healthy. I'm glad you were interested enough to read a post related to heart rate, because its far from something for 'redliners' to brag about. It is unique to each individual and tuning into yours can be a part of a smart health strategy :).

At 70 years old I have several "smart health strategies."

I swim multiple times per week, walk many miles, lift weights, stretch and ride about 3,000 - 3,500 miles per year. I attempt to eat in a nutritionally sound way and I am regular in my bowels.

But, you know, messing around with my max heart rate isn't one of them, and it isn't going to be one of those "smart health strategies" - do I seem a bit irritated?

Got to go and get some stress relief. Think I will take a nap! - Oh, by the way, just returned from a snow hike in the mountains with the wife. Saw a wonderful bird bobbing in and out of the ice-encrusted water, gathering food.

At the risk of seeming argumentative: 1. I think the 220-age formula was widely used before the internet. I swear I remember learning it in an exercise physiology class back in the 1970s, and 2. any formula you use will only be an approximation, will not fit someone who is not "average", and will thus be vulnerable to being declared "bogus".

AND... thanks to the internet it is pretty easy to find out that there are other formulas that may yield more accurate results. :deadhorse:

Robergs R and Landwehr R (2002). "The Surprising History of the “HRmax=220-age” Equation" (PDF). Journal of Exercise Physiology 5 (2): 1-10. ISSN 1097-9751. http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf. Retrieved 4-1-09.

This paper contains a detailed study of the formula's history. Finding essentially no foundation for it, the researchers collected published studies on HR max of various populations, unified the data and the stats, and determined a best fit to the merged data set. There's a better formula in the paper. It's still just an average.

I had a cardiac imaging test done a few years ago. The docs took me up to what they first said was "max." Then they later told me it was only 95%. Then they told me the detemined max using the formula. On climbs I routinely exceed that max by at least 10 beats, and when I did an LT test, the coach took me up to the 180s, not the 160s that are predicted for me. It's been debunked, but nobody in the medical field seems to be listening.

Maybe it doesn't matter much if you're not addressing training zones?

So Denver, why are you getting ticked? Isn't this one of those times where you let the geeks be geeks, let the smile and flower riders be smile and flower riders, and just move on to the next thread?

How's your back doing?

Robergs R and Landwehr R (2002). "The Surprising History of the “HRmax=220-age” Equation" (PDF). Journal of Exercise Physiology 5 (2): 1-10. ISSN 1097-9751. http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf. Retrieved 4-1-09.

This paper contains a detailed study of the formula's history. Finding essentially no foundation for it, the researchers collected published studies on HR max of various populations, unified the data and the stats, and determined a best fit to the merged data set. There's a better formula in the paper. It's still just an average.

I had a cardiac imaging test done a few years ago. The docs took me up to what they first said was "max." Then they later told me it was only 95%. Then they told me the detemined max using the formula. On climbs I routinely exceed that max by at least 10 beats, and when I did an LT test, the coach took me up to the 180s, not the 160s that are predicted for me. It's been debunked, but nobody in the medical field seems to be listening.

Maybe it doesn't matter much if you're not addressing training zones?
....

Thanks Road Fan.... I wrote a longer and very elegant and insightful reply but the new software just dumped it and I'm not going through that again. :mad:

The maximum heart rate is when the physician injects some kind of cardiac drug that progressively speeds up your heart until you reach cardiac arrest and die.

That would be Max + 1. ;)

I bought a Polar heart rate monitor for the bike, used it for two months and gave it away. None of it makes any sense to me. I just ride/run as I want. Lots of LSD: long slow distances, and intervals of: I think it is going to blow. Works for me.

Thanks Road Fan.... I wrote a longer and very elegant and insightful reply but the new software just dumped it and I'm not going through that again. :mad:

My ghost writing fee is modest. PM me.