Training & Nutrition - Max heart rate for 54 y/o?

Been reading about training in various heart rate zones, so I need to determine my maximum heart rate. At age 54, according to the "220 - your age", my max rate should be 166.
Been riding with a heart rate monitor. Today, I rode some hilly terrain. On one of the steepest hills, I noticed my heart rate hit 176.
In determining the training zones, what max number should I use?

Been reading about training in various heart rate zones, so I need to determine my maximum heart rate. At age 54, according to the "220 - your age", my max rate should be 166.
Been riding with a heart rate monitor. Today, I rode some hilly terrain. On one of the steepest hills, I noticed my heart rate hit 176.
In determining the training zones, what max number should I use?
The 220-age formula was developed for large populations and was never intended to apply to a single individual. I would question the knowledge and advice from any source that recommends it. That said, assuming you're in good health, you should perform a max heart rate test to determine your true max or better yet, perform a lactate threshold heart rate test and use a plan built around that. There are numerous protocols for each described on the web.

I'm also 54 ,the highest I've recorded is 157 so I still use 166 to base my zones. My resting heartrate is 47 so maybe I'm just slow, just like my riding style. If you've seen 176 then I'd use 176.

...you should perform a max heart rate test to determine your true max or better yet, perform a lactate threshold heart rate test and use a plan built around that...

Where do you get all that?

Where do you get all that?

Look at the sticky at the top of this forum, it tells you all you need to know about how to determine your anaerobic threshold.

OP, MHR varies dramatically between individuals, the age-related formula is next to worthless, you'll find numerous threads in here on the subject. But if you weren't in real distress when you saw 176, (I mean at-your-limit, want-to-throw-up distress) you can safely assume yours is higher than that. FWIW the highest I have seen mine recently is 182 (I'm 56 years old) so as far as the Garmin is concerned I set my max at 185. It won't be accurate, but it won't be more than 3% or 4% out, either.

I'm about to turn 56. The basic formula says my MHR should be 164. Other formulas push that up a couple of beats. I've hit 177 on rides, without being at the point of throwing up, so I setup my zones using a max of 185. Then, just this week, I had a metabolic test done to nail down my Lactate Threshold, which turned out to be 161 (300 watts). My Aerobic Threshold is 151 (270 watts). Knowing your Lactate Threshold makes the MHR pretty much irrelevant, since what you are doing with the HR zones has everything to do with their relation to your threshold, not to your max. To have computer zone readings make sense above 90%, I calculated a max based on my lactate threshold being 90% of max, a commonly used factor. But other than how it controls the settings on your particular computer, the max heart rate really means nothing. It's all about your lactate threshold. The test also provided my V02 Max, which is 44.5 (mL/kg/min) @ 172bpm. Better than I thought it would be.

Either perform the self-test, which has a learning curve, or spend some bucks (mine cost $150) and get a metabolic test. My self test (a different one than is in this forum) had me thinking my LT was 167, when it was 161. So I've been pushing my heart rate up into higher zones than I thought I was.

One further point. How you set your zones depends on whose workouts you will be following. When Joe Friel says "Zone 2" it means a range that is different than most zone calculators will provide. Training Peaks has functionality to set your zones based on a variety of methods, including Joe's. The underlying zone descriptions (and the science) is the same, it's just that the dividing points and what the zones are called is different. The test results calculated zones for me that were different than the Friel method, so I just used the LT from the test and calculated my Friel zones, since I am using his book to develop my training plan. Most computers will let you enter specific zone ranges - My Garmin does it using Garmin Connect. You set the zones there and download them to your computer.

AztalRider: Do you go by the docttine of staying out of zone 3? General fitness sites stress spending much of your time in this zone where bike programs avoid it.

If your healthy the best way to find out is hammer a hill and when you start to see spots your probably getting close to your max. I'm 53 mine is 200bpm

Yes I do. If I'm doing base in Zone 2, and I start edging into zone 3 in a situation where I can't or don't want to back off, I push into Zone 4. That 2 to 3 transition happens to be one of the places where Friel's zones don't match the zones provided with my metabolic test, which were based on the Australia Institute of Sport. Friel caps zone 2 at 143 for me, while the Aussies cap it at 146. I've been letting myself use the higher ceiling.

I do question the doctrine, at least for rides where doing zone 3 the whole time wouldn't limit duration, like my hour long commutes. So much info - so hard to know what's right.

I do question the doctrine, ...

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspotpartdeux.html

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspottraining.html

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspotpartdeux.html

http://www.fascatcoaching.com/sweetspottraining.html

Interesting. Seems he is basically saying to just stay under your LT, and all is good? A sweet spot of 70-100% of LT covers Zones 1-4. More fun than hours and hours at Zone 2!

Interesting. Seems he is basically saying to just stay under your LT, and all is good? A sweet spot of 70-100% of LT covers Zones 1-4. More fun than hours and hours at Zone 2!

I read it as (for increasing aerobic fitness) ride at the highest intensity that lets you complete the desired volume for the ride, the microcycle, and the mesocycle. Another way to look at is there is a trade off between intensity and volume and as long as you're above some threshold at which there is a training stimulus, it doesn't make much difference if you increase time or increase intensity. Of course specificity should always be factored in but only to a point. Pursuiters still train upwards, sometimes well upwards, of 12k miles/year even though their event is only 4km.

I'm also 54 ,the highest I've recorded is 157 so I still use 166 to base my zones. My resting heartrate is 47 so maybe I'm just slow, just like my riding style. If you've seen 176 then I'd use 176.

I agree. The experience you've had is not a test, so you don't know that 176 is your max. But you definitely know that 166 is NOT your max, and that your max is AT LEAST 176.

When I started back into cycling, my tested max was about 182 at age 54. I think now that I'm fitter (3 yrs later) my max is lower - my hr doesn't fly up as high as it used to in hard efforts. I might test it again to see.

BTW, I had a cardiac health test ( a type of stress echocardiogram combined with imaging in a large machine, I think it might have been an MRI) done before I started training harder, on my doc's recommendation. I'm glad I did.

And - don't agonize over what your max is. If you ran a max test 5 times in 5 months you'd probably get 5 different numbers. Threshold is indeed much more important than max; and once you've done enough training, you get to know where you are vs threshold without even looking...

I'm a 54-year-old woman. I have always had a slow HR (low 60s, upper 50s), even when I was overweight and out of shape. After 3.5 years of regular cycling including numerous strenuous long distance rides, I estimate my current resting HR to be in the upper 40s.

Several weeks ago I saw 184 on my HR monitor at the top of a strenuous hill. Since then, I have done several hard long and/or hilly rides during which I saw no higher than 170-something even on a big long strenuous climb --- so I am seeing the high number come down under the same level of effort.

With respect to max HR: I have read that our actual MAX HR is a fixed number that doesn't change; what does change is the HR under the same level of exertion as we get fitter (or less fit) over time. So, rather than seeing a lower max HR on the same hill, you might be seeing a lower number with the same effort. So, while I saw 184 several weeks ago, I might see 176 today on that same hill.

Yes, maybe I can just produce more power today at a lower HR.

Yes, maybe I can just produce more power today at a lower HR.Which is of course one of the major goals of training.

Which is of course one of the major goals of training.

And here I thought the goal was to produce more power (or produce the same power for a longer duration).

And here I thought the goal was to produce more power (or produce the same power for a longer duration).I think you just said the same thing I said.

I think you just said the same thing I said.

Really? How do you rate the case where I used to be able to maintain 270 W @ 173 bpm for 35 min. and now I can do 270 W for 60 min but at 176 bpm? By your earlier post, I would be less fit.

Really? How do you rate the case where I used to be able to maintain 270 W @ 173 bpm for 35 min. and now I can do 270 W for 60 min but at 176 bpm? By your earlier post, I would be less fit.I would say that's quite odd. The point of serious training is to increase watts/kg at LT. One can do that by losing weight or increasing power at the same weight or both. But having this metric at LT adds another tricky variable.

Suppose one could put out 250 W at an LT of 173. What if one could then train to be able to put out 270 W at that same LT HR? Why, then one could back off the HR by a few beats and greatly increase endurance. This is the most common result of training that I see. People train hard and are then able to climb much more comfortably and with greater endurance at the same pace, or climb faster than before at their previous level of effort.

The other thing I see very commonly is that when people start serious training, they are amazed at their high HR when climbing. We see these threads continually on here. But after a considerable time training, say a couple of years, their LTHR and max HR frequently come down a bit, even though their LT may be a higher percentage of their maxHR. They climb at a lower HR and much faster than before. This is the exact phenomenon on which Yen is commenting. I have seen this in any number of experienced cyclists, especially those who specialize in LD. I believe a major contributor to this phenomenon is an increase in stroke and blood volume.

In fact if you've been training hard, it's very unusual to see your body requiring a greater blood flow to accomplish the same work that it required before the hard training, especially since one of the first results of hard training is an increase in stroke volume, and one of the first results of a layoff is a decrease in same. So yes, something odd is going on. The increase in endurance could be due to several factors unrelated to HR.

If you said you were getting 280 W at 176, I would find that unremarkable. My guess is that you may have increased your watts at LT as well as your LTHR, but in the case on which you remark, you were perhaps a little dehydrated or otherwise at a slight disadvantage which lowered your steady-state watts and/or increased your HR somewhat.

I'd further guess that if you were now to have the opportunity to try a 173 HR for 35 minutes, under that same conditions as before, you would see a higher average wattage.

I would say that's quite odd. The point of serious training is to increase watts/kg at LT. ...

Right. Nothing there about heart rate.

Right. Nothing there about heart rate.Really? Then you use power for LT estimation? I've always assumed that even the pros used LTHR for estimation. If that's what you do, how do you find that for accuracy? IOW, when you climb the 3rd pass, do you still use the same watts?

Really? Then you use power for LT estimation?
There are two choices to specify LT: power and VO2. Power is much more amenable to field testing.

I've always assumed that even the pros used LTHR for estimation.
Estimation of what? LTHR may be used as a surrogate for LT or functional threshold but that's all it is, a surrogate.

If that's what you do, how do you find that for accuracy? IOW, when you climb the 3rd pass, do you still use the same watts?
I don't follow. How do I find what for accuracy? I use functional threshold power for the purposes it was designed for. In races, I pace by strategic and tactical considerations. Usually, that means keeping up with the pack. On my own I pace by a combination of power and RPE based on the desired training level.

I have two friends just starting to train with power. I think I'm going to strongly recommend the don't wear a hear rate strap. It just tends to needlessly confound things.

There are two choices to specify LT: power and VO2. Power is much more amenable to field testing.

Estimation of what? LTHR may be used as a surrogate for LT or functional threshold but that's all it is, a surrogate.

I don't follow. How do I find what for accuracy? I use functional threshold power for the purposes it was designed for. In races, I pace by strategic and tactical considerations. Usually, that means keeping up with the pack. On my own I pace by a combination of power and RPE based on the desired training level.

I have two friends just starting to train with power. I think I'm going to strongly recommend the don't wear a hear rate strap. It just tends to needlessly confound things.My understanding is that there's just one choice to specify LT: "Lactate threshold (L T) is identified as that point at which a 1 mmol/L increase in blood lactate concentration above baseline values is followed by another 1 mmol/L increase." > http://www.coachr.org/lactate_threshold_application_to_training_and_performance.htm

Some authorities say LT occurs at a 4 mmole increase, others at a 2.5 mmole increase. The above quote identifies the lower threshold, which seems like a good idea. In any case it has nothing to do with a particular power or HR, but with lactate accumulation. We can use power or HR to estimate current LT, but it's only an estimation. LT moves around quite a bit during our training year, both in terms of power and HR. LTHR is a surrogate and so is FTP.

The tremendous advantage of using both power and HR is that it allows one to precisely determine one's momentary physical condition. If your HR at 270W is 180, you know you got a problem, and you might also know the solution. Same with 270W and 170HR. Without the HRM, you're guessing at the problem; in both cases you know something's wrong, but you can't be sure what. It does make things more complicated, because it gives you something extra to understand. Every tool we use requires some thought and experience to use well. RPE isn't nearly as informative, especially in the early stages of things going sideways.

I'd use both if the PM weren't so expensive. I just can't justify it, so I use cog-and-cadence and RPE vs. HR. Not as good as power vs. HR, but it's close enough to be able to train and ride efficiently.

I come at this from a slightly different angle than you, that of an LD rider. Sometimes I have a pack to keep up with. Much more frequently I'm pulling a paceline with or without help or riding solo. It's like I'm always off the front by myself or with 3 other guys. I'm much more interested in fighting environmental problems, both exterior and interior, than in FTP. If I take care of my personal environment, my performance will be what I'm able to achieve through training and nothing else. My HRM gives me a decent window into that environment.

My understanding is that there's just one choice to specify LT: "Lactate threshold (L T) is identified as that point at which a 1 mmol/L increase in blood lactate concentration above baseline values is followed by another 1 mmol/L increase." > http://www.coachr.org/lactate_threshold_application_to_training_and_performance.htm

There are myriad definitions of LT and generally none is absolutely correct or incorrect. It's a matter of convention and convenience. In fact, to think there is one single definition of LT is a false precision. LT is a concept not a hard and fast physiological point. I saw a presentation where the author listed about 25 definitions of LT used in the literature.

As to not having anything to do with power, huh? Thinking of it as a graph, if blood lactate is the y-axis, what would you have as the x-axis? Shouldn't it be intensity? I work this hard, my lactate is this much. Hard can be defined in terms of power or VO2 since these are direct measures of effort. It doesn't make sense to use heart rate (or ore temperature, or skin temp, or respiration rate) since these are not independent, but just like lactate, are dependent variables as a function of power or VO2.

There are long discussions on why heart rate data is at best redundant and possibly misleading when used along with power and RPE (which is always available). Slowtwitch.com and the wattage list both have long threads on the subject.

FWIW, the 220-age formula has been "challenged" over the last decade. Wikipedia had the following that might be of interest:

HRmax = 208 − (0.7 × age)
(Another "tweak" to the traditional formula is known as the Tanaka method. Based on a study of thousands of individuals, a new formula was devised which is believed to be more accurate).

In 2007, researchers at the Oakland University analysed maximum heart rates of 132 individuals recorded yearly over 25 years, and produced a linear equation very similar to the Tanaka formula—HRmax = 206.9 − (0.67 × age)—and a nonlinear equations—HRmax = 191.5 − (0.007 × age2). The linear equation had a confidence interval of ±5–8 bpm and the nonlinear equation had a tighter range of ±2–5 bpm. Also a third nonlinear equation was produced — HRmax = 163 + (1.16 × age) − (0.018 × age2).

This Tanaka formula "variation" works best for me.

Heart rate max "thing" always goes round and round.

Dr RCranium personally argues against advising new HR monitor users to "find their max HR."


Its just stupid.


Why oh why do you say that Dr RC?


Because, it takes a dedicated, focused athlete, totally rested, yet totally warmed up to make a practiced, intelligent effort at obtaining maximum HR.

My approach to learning about HR monitor guided-exercise, focuses on understanding the range of your heart rates with respect to rest and perceived exertion. To do this you spend several days, or a week to see what your resting heart rate is and what your heart rate rises to when walking, jogging, swimming or stair climbing.

In this "learning period, the new user attempts to reach HR plateaus, that he/she sustains for ten or more minutes. These plateaus would start at 80% of estimated Max HR.

Only after, learning about heart rate and perceived exertion does the user begin an attempt to find Max HR (after a rest day or more) And bear in mind, to be of any real use, all HR readings must be logged along with other training data so as to produce an HR "history."

(another high quality, and insightful answer posted at no charge)by Dr RCranium

I'm 54 and my max is 185 - I know this from racing. My resting rate is 60 - high on both ends

Well, the 220 minus age is just a ball park estimate. Individuals vary too much to rely on the number. Some find it too high and some find it too low.

I am 59. When I do workout on the stationary bike, I can get into the 170s when I get focused. I get more intense on the road but I do not fool with heart rate monitors on the bike. I figure my max is probably in the 180s. The calculated number using the formula is 161.

Here's my physiologist and physiotherapist perspective.

Once someone gets over 30-35, has been sedentary for several years, had moderate life stress and a less than optimal diet, MHR should be treated with extreme caution on return to exercise. And I would argue less than 3% of the population has anything approaching an ideal diet for slowing the ageing process.

Stress ekg's are not sensitive or specific in discovering cardiovascular pathology. They don't discover the state of coronary artherosclerosis, coronary blood flow, plaques, aneurysms, etc. Many people have had myocardial infarcts several weeks after having a normal stress ekg reading.

As you age, ALL your tissue ages, including the heart muscle and conduction system. And the ability of tissue to adapt to stress reduces.

When resuming an exercise program, I recommend such people build an exertion base over 6 months of 4-6 hours per week at an intensity sustainable for 30 minutes. This will be somewhere between Aerobic and Anaerobic Threshold. But I also recommend they go on a low fat diet, lose excess fat, and take aspirin before workouts to reduce the possibility of emboli and thrombus causing stroke or MI.

I don't recommend interval training until the cardiovascular system has had 6-12 months to reduce artherosclerotic plaques and fat from within coronary and general circulation and muscle, and opportunity to build denser capillary beds through muscle.
Intervals seriously disrupt laminar blood flow, and the turbulence created is what dislodges arterial plaques.

After 12 mths, I increase interval duration before intensity. It is intensity that is potentially most destructive.

Treat your body as if you want it to still be working well when you are 90.

I'm 56, and have 4 years of detailed HR data from a Polar in the gym and a Garmin on the road. Max HR about 188-190, LTHR 158-160 by blood test and hill climbs, resting HR around 52...never been able to get it to 49 despite a lot of training :). 25 years ago when I did hard step aerobics HR would go over 200, so I think it does change with age, but not much.

25 years ago when I did hard step aerobics HR would go over 200, so I think it does change with age, but not much.

Hi Chuck, I disagree. Your personal example is a sample size of one. When you look at a larger sample size, the regression equations show maximum heart rate falls significantly. i.e.

Haskell and Fox's 220-age is practically meaningful for the majority of the population.

The most recent large sample regression studies support this - Oakland University (USA) and Lund University (Sweden). Their equations are respectively
MHR = 191.5-(0.007*age^2)
MHR = 203.7/(1+EXP(0.033*(age-104.3)))

Nevertheless normal distribution curves always mean a small % of people will vary signficantly. i.e.

- I am 51 and have a sub 40 bpm resting HR, resting BP of 115/65, and top sprint speed of 55kph.

- A friend is 65 and has a 6 month maximum HR of 177, resting HR of 55, and a top sprint speed of 57kph.

Bruce, you're right. My sample size of 1 doesn't mean much. HR hasn't changed a lot for me, except that 190 now seems to hurt a lot more than 200 did when I was 29 :).

Bruce, you're right. My sample size of 1 doesn't mean much. HR hasn't changed a lot for me, except that 190 now seems to hurt a lot more than 200 did when I was 29 :).

I can only dream of a 190 HR. I have returned to regular training carrying too much fat, and dare not push my HR above 170 currently. Maybe as I lose weight, and clear the plaques out of the arteries, and take on a few 2 mile 10% hill climbs, I'll get back near my 20 yr old HRmax. :)

I am 30 and my max is about 190. It has always been rather high no matter how much I train. During interval training I hit 176.

If your healthy the best way to find out is hammer a hill and when you start to see spots your probably getting close to your max. I'm 53 mine is 200bpm

I too have similar results. I am 53 and find my max is 190+
This has increased over the last 2 years due to training, but I still use it as a guide, since a lot of factors affect HR, like over training, and level of rest, I use the feel of the effort to judge more than HR monitor, but use both to judge nmy progress.

I'm also 54 ,the highest I've recorded is 157 so I still use 166 to base my zones. My resting heartrate is 47 so maybe I'm just slow, just like my riding style. If you've seen 176 then I'd use 176.

If you've hit 176 make your max 180..