Fifty Plus (50+) - Max Heart Rate, am I goning to blow?

Looking for some advice on what my target zone should be when riding.
little background, I'm 52, 5-11 and weigh about 178. I've not been riding the past 12 years or so due to a bad hip. I had hip replacement late last year and now I'm getting back on my bike again. Now my heart rate when riding regularly has always been on the high side so maybe I'm okay.
Yesterday was the first day I've been out on my road bike and I had my HRM on, my average rate was 150bpm and I maxed out at 190 going up a fairly short but very steep hill coming back into our neighborhood. During most of the ride I really wasn't starving for air or did I feel out of breath.
Now if you go by the method of 220-age (52) my max should be 168 and my high end training zone should be around 135 but if I would train at that rate I may as well get off and walk.:(
Am I endangering myself and should I slow back into it or do I just have a naturally high heart rate? I think in the past I remember maxing out in the hi 180's.

Any advice would be appreciated...

220-age is all but worthless; your max can be 20-30 beats off from it. If you're out of shape, get checked out by your doc before getting back into vigorous exercise.

I'm 55, and my max is 192 on the bike (it'll be different for biking/running/swimming). 220-55 = 165.
192 has been my max since 2004. I expect it will be for quite some time to come...

Google "talk test"- it's a way to get a pretty good estimate of your max without going to the max.

Just ride to the point where you are unable to talk. (out of breath)
Then,
Back off a tad so that you can speak.
I rode that way for two weeks and became very strong on the bike.

Honestly, I've never read of anyone here on BFN 50+ who has "blown up" from over-exertion. Perhaps that's because they really "blew up?" :)

Forget 220-age.

Listen to your body, and follow its instructions.

Enjoy, and welcome.

Brew fwiw, you have to find your own maximum heart rate. Just like 10 wheels said. Go as hard as you can, where you cant go any farther without falling over. Do this at different times, not right after each other and take your average that should be your max. I'm a few months from 71 and my max is 170.I read somewhere that the writer said to add 5 to your max, but I forget why. Once you get your max, you can set your zones up so you can get a good work out, but not over do it. If you do a search of the forums, you can get so much information, you'll be reading all day.

Your right there is a plethora of heart rate threads on here that I should have checked first...

I did have a stress test before my operation late last year and everything looked fine.

I'll see what happens over the next several weeks after I ease back into it. But it is disappointing that I used to be able to average over 20mph and yesterday I could only muster 15.5 mph average:( I have a long way to go...but it was good to be back on the saddle with no pain in my hip:)

The standard advice is that you should check with your physician before embarking on a program of strenuous exercise. If your stress test was good, then you should be OK. Assuming you have no condition for which strenuous exercise is contraindicated, you are not going to "injure" yourself by revving your heart rate up "too high". I've asked several doctors about this and they agree that you do not injure a healthy heart by overexertion.

Your right there is a plethora of heart rate threads on here that I should have checked first...

I did have a stress test before my operation late last year and everything looked fine.

I'll see what happens over the next several weeks after I ease back into it. But it is disappointing that I used to be able to average over 20mph and yesterday I could only muster 15.5 mph average:( I have a long way to go...but it was good to be back on the saddle with no pain in my hip:)
Welcome to the "GOLDEN YEARS".

As other people have said, max heart rates do not follow the 120-AGE equation. I had a friend who was 48 and I think I once pushed him up to 210. I know another guy who at 54 had a hard time getting to 160. Both guys were in reasonably good shape. There is all sorts of individual variation.

I would give you a few caveats. You should get checked out by a physician. If you have any real doubts of your cardiovascular system, a stress EKG would not hurt either. Another thing, over the years, I have seen a bunch of accidents caused and/or suffered by cyclists who are exercising close to maximum levels. I know a couple who have actually passed out whilst red lining on the bike. Passing out whilst riding does not strike me as a really safe thing to do.

But that being said, if you get involved in any group ride on any weekend, there are some riders who treat it as their RACE. And they have GOT TO WIN. If it was very easy to kill yourself by pushing things too hard, we would have dozens of cyclists die in the state of FL each and every weekend. So you can push yourself awfully hard without any real damage.

Am I endangering myself and should I slow back into it or do I just have a naturally high heart rate? I think in the past I remember maxing out in the hi 180's.Yeah that's curious. But guess what, I've had similar results when getting back on the bike after being hit by a car.

My HR Max topped out at about 180-185 way back in the 1980s. And usually, I've red-lined in the 160s and definitely blew chunks if I did not rest when ever i started hitting high 150s.

But then last year, on my first real long road ride, and after a good rest stop and a cup of coffee I hit 175 and was hitting some 160s, that usually would have "bonked-me" to a stop after ten minutes. So I take this to mean, when you are practiced at an exercise, and come back to it after a lay off - but are out of shape, you may indeed find new "high Max HRs."

However, now that i am riding a lot, I can't get anywhere near those numbers, and seldom hit the 160s, just like the last ten years. Most peoples comfort levels are around 220-age levels. But I guess, being rested, and familiar with a particular exercise allows for Max HR readings - especially if you are out of shape to begin with.

Yes that formula is useless and no wheres close to what you should be, I'm 54 and hit 187- 189 on just about every ride and can get up to 192.
You are fine unless you have a known heart condition if you stop and your heart rate starts to drop right away you are fine if your heart rate stays in the upper range for a long time you may want to get checked out to be sure.
I say this because a friend till a few years ago who seemed to be in great shape and was very fast found that he had a heart condition he still rides but at a much slower pace and really watches his heart rate he can hit 200 easy, one thing that happens to him is his heart rate will stay up and will not drop very fast to recover, a sign that something may be up.

Not only is everybody different but it also depends on the sport. I'm 57 and a max HR of 185 is totally accurate for me when I'm xc-skiing but seems to be on the low side for me when I'm on the bike.

Just keep riding and you'll see your numbers go down and your recovery time shorten.

contact your doctor, sports physiologist.

I'm not ashamed to walk hills, now.

Thanks for all the help on the subject, time to get back out there and get back in to shape!!!!

Hi,

Just to add to the plethora of good advice above, please make sure that you check with your doctor and get a stress test before embarking on a strenuous exercise program. This past Sunday, after the Masters 50+ race (20 miles, 26 MPH average) one of the competitors experienced some difficulty breathing. Long story short, he (fortunately) ended up at the hospital where he had a heart attack. This guy has been racing for a number of years. From what I hear, he will be OK, but the lesson of this story is that he was experiencing similar symptoms at the previous week's race and he did not go to the doctor to get check out.

I am writing this not to scare you or others away from regular and strenuous exercise, just make sure that you go into it knowing your initial limits.

From what I understand you will pass out before your heart stops beating... it's the bodies way of saying you are over doing it. Of course that is a rough way to find out if your cycling at the time.

I'm 52 and rode 28 miles up and down all ride at aobut 162 bps for most of the ride. I could still speak though while riding up hill it was a little more difficult. Find you talking point and back of a little. I find it helpful with a HM as a way to idintify where I am at, at any given time.

Riding at your max heart rate can in fact be dangerous and it is why stress tests are done in a medical office. I finished a race, got off the bike and had a stroke. I peaked about 5 beats under my max heart rate. Luckily the stroke was in a place where the result was not extreme but it could have also resulted in much higher drama. At age 15 there is little danger but as one gets older our blood vessels are naturally less flexible and extreme effort can be an issue. Now I limit my heart rate to high but short of a totally max effort. That was disappointing to be forced to do because I enjoyed pushing myself to a maximal effort.

I just wish I could get my HR over 140. I wish I had your problem.

I just wish I could get my HR over 140. I wish I had your problem.
Your not on any blood pressure meds are you ?

58.5 and my bike max seems to be about 190 but it does depend on the activity. Purposeful riding, it's in the 150-60s all day long. For a few months I rode with a HRM just to see what was happening, that's enlightening. If you want to see a scary heart rate, monitor yourself during hour 5 or 6 on a hot day when you are get dehydrated, yikes!

Your not on any blood pressure meds are you ?

I am on no meds at all except for thyroid meds. Aspirin when I get a head ache.

58.5 and my bike max seems to be about 190 but it does depend on the activity. Purposeful riding, it's in the 150-60s all day long. For a few months I rode with a HRM just to see what was happening, that's enlightening. If you want to see a scary heart rate, monitor yourself during hour 5 or 6 on a hot day when you are get dehydrated, yikes!

Heat is a killer on performance. Yesterday was our first real hot day at 85deg and plenty humid as Michigan gets. I felt pretty good going into mile 16 then my heart rate wouldnt settle down, and pulse was up around 175-180 on a fairly flat, slightly uphill grade. I had already consumed a litre of water and finally called it a day at mile 21. I'll get better at it as the temps steadily run in the 80's but this first one is tough. And I hardly felt like I rode yesterday. Sheesh.

I did a solo century in the 100s, it topped at 116 F around 2pm. Stupid, yes. Educational, yes. Yeah, it's fascinating to watch your heart rate "kite" if that's the correct technical term. It felt dangerous around hour 5 so I found a nice shade tree and took a 40 min. rest/nap, and let water assimiliation catch up. When it's that hot, it doesn't seem to matter how much you drink if you're riding, you never catch up hydrate-wise. I don't think I'd do it again, but I think the body is alot more resilient that we give it credit - but it wants to be listened to..and its' issues addressed.

I hit 192 spinning last night, close to maxed-out.

I must be the ONLY person in the entire BF community who can say this but 220-age formula is fairly accurate for me. It is only a starting point for estimating MaxHR in large populations anyway and IMO too many people think because they are different (always "better" here at BF of course) that the formula must be "junk". :popcorn

I must be the ONLY person in the entire BF community who can say this but 220-age formula is fairly accurate for me. It is only a starting point for estimating MaxHR in large populations anyway and IMO too many people think because they are different (always "better" here at BF of course) that the formula must be "junk". :popcorn

I know we've been through this conversation before, but I'll give it another go. I guess it depends what you mean by "junk". If it's recognized that, at best, it represents only an average, I wouldn't say it's junk (altho there is reason to suspect it's accuracy even as an average-- more on that below). I would say it's useless for any particular individual. If 220-age works for you, it is purely by coincidence. After all you can pick a formula virtually at random for x-age = MHR, where x is between 275 and 150 and it will be accurate for someone. It's like saying the average male wears a 42 regular suit, I wear a 42 regular, so that must be what everyone should wear. Even if 220-age is an accurate average, the range is so wide that it's no help to an individual.

And, as I said, there is reason to suspect it's accuracy as an average. The original data that led to the formula was not based on a representative sample of the general population. It was literally whoever walked in the door. including smokers and people with heart disease. Further, because it included people who weren't used to exercising, it is theorized that many prematurely stopped without truly reaching their MHR (see generally http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html?src=pm). I think it is for this reason that 220-age more often leads to a too low result than a too high one.

The formulas derived from better data generally yield higher results, especially for the masters population (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Myth-Of-Maximum-Heart-Rate-=-220-Age&id=678707). However, the scatter is so wide that no formula is useful to predict a particular individual's MHR. " Exercise physiologist Dr. Fritz Hagerman, who has studied world-class rowers for three decades, has said that the idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate is ludicrous: he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220, and others on the same team and with the same ability, with maximum rates of just 160 [id.]."

BTW, while my MHR is above the average( ~195-200, 58 yo), I in no way believe that this is "better." I have talked to many with lower MHRs who can kick my butt.

I think that your max heart rate depends on several things: genetics, age, exercise history, etc. The standard formulas are junk because they take into account only one of the factors and assume everything else is "average". I suspect they emphasize safety over everything else. Trainers, health clubs, etc do not want to push you into having a heart attack. The standard formula guarantees that they cannot be accused of negligence if they base their recommendations on it and tell you to consult your doctor first (which you should do but of course will not do). If you want a really accurate number your doctor can give you a stress test to determine it.

I'm 59 and mine is at 190 based on some self made measurements. If you do a web search on maximum heart rate measurements you should find some tests you can perform on yourself though as always if you are not certain about your physical condition you should consult your doctor first. The two tests I used were a step test in which you step up and down a standard stairway step at a specified rate for 3 minutes. You record your heart rate for the last two minutes and add some number to the max. If you have an HRM it is quite easy to do this test since it will record the data for you. The other test was to take a long run and then sprint the final 2 minutes as hard as you can, then add 5 beats to the max HR you record. The 5 beats is based on the presumption that muscle fatigue at the end of the run (I believe they specified 5 or 10 km) prevents you from hitting your true max HR. I did that test but I used an indoor bike trainer instead of running and I used two or three times the distance they specified. The two tests I did were within 1 bpm of each other in the predicted max HR. That agreement is probably happenstance but I did not repeat the tests multiple times so I did not test for that. I think the numbers you get this way are pretty useful for managing your exercise level. When I tired to exercise according to the age based formulas I always found that their maximum suggested HR levels had me barely breaking a sweat and that was true even when I was much younger. When I tell my Polar unit my max HR is 190 I find that its definitions of the HRs that are easy, moderate, difficult, and maximum effort are right on the money compared to what my body tells me.

Ken

I was sick last week, went to the ER on Thursday, had a EKG treadmill test on Friday and passed with flying colors. 10 minutes, max BP 170/94 at 165 bpm at a fast big stride pace. I could still talk in two or three word units but not more. I could have tried the next level but that was enough for the doc to see all was well with my ticker. I recoverd quickly. Told them before i started that i had been cycling for about 2 years. I will be 66 on May 23rd. I weigh 194 pounds and 5 feet 8 inches. I wasnt sure before this test where i should be at for max HR. Now i now i can stay at 140 to 155 HR without to much worry. Usually when i get back from a 50 or so miles on a mild to warm day i am at 126 to 130 after cool down easy spin for a couple of miles. I also learned that i have to hydrate better and more often than i have been. The learning goes on. As for the 220 it seems with practice and goals most can exceed the average. By the way the doc looked like he wanted me to have a heart attack.

Higher max heart rate does not mean better fitness. It just means a higher max heart rate.

Am I supposed to be paying attention to my heart rate when I ride? I have absolutely no idea what my heart rate is when I'm riding.

The standard formula guarantees that they cannot be accused of negligence if they base their recommendations on it and tell you to consult your doctor first (which you should do but of course will not do).

Not so sure about that. If someone's MHR is on the low end of the Bell curve and they have an underlying heart condition, use of the standard formula could be dangerous. With the documented inadequacy of the standard formula, it's use may well be negligent. In practice, however, standard releases with the advice to consult the Dr. first is probably pretty good protection against a lawsuit.

I must be the ONLY person in the entire BF community who can say this but 220-age formula is fairly accurate for me. It is only a starting point for estimating MaxHR in large populations anyway and IMO too many people think because they are different (always "better" here at BF of course) that the formula must be "junk". :popcorn

Guess your trolling again. No bites here.

Am I supposed to be paying attention to my heart rate when I ride? I have absolutely no idea what my heart rate is when I'm riding.

What?! You dont have that IPhone app??

Not so sure about that. If someone's MHR is on the low end of the Bell curve and they have an underlying heart condition, use of the standard formula could be dangerous. With the documented inadequacy of the standard formula, it's use may well be negligent.

The documented inadequacy of the formula is that it is very conservative. If they recommend that you also consult your doctor (as I said) they are covering themselves pretty well. In the US you can sue anyone for anything and sometimes win no matter how stupid your claims. So nothing guarantees that you cannot be sued, following accepted norms does diminish the plaintiffs chances of success. That's all we can say, the details are in the hands of the jury.

Actually I just joined my company's health club not because I intend to use it, but because it was free to do so. The club is run by an external company even though it is on my employer's premises. They did demand that I undergo a health evaluation before beginning exercise. The evaluation consisted of me sitting in a chair and having my BP and HR measured. No advice on exercise intensity was given, I was merely told I was in excellent condition. There is one successful operation that doesn't even go as far as I suggested in cautioning members about HR limitations.

Ken

Guess your trolling again. No bites here.

Cyclinfool: You and I recently had a disagreement in another thread, or perhaps it was even just a misunderstanding. I have gotten over it. The post you refer to is not inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic. It's just a difference in perspective that might be expected to stimulate discussion, which it did with Chinarider.

No need to follow me around through the forum with snippy provocative remarks. I won't be doing that to you.

Am I supposed to be paying attention to my heart rate when I ride? I have absolutely no idea what my heart rate is when I'm riding.

Well I was in the same boat until last fall. I still go on a walk after lunch with my old boss, a habit we started when I still worked for him (long story). He is rather obsessed with his heart rate and blood pressure and he more or less shamed me into getting a HR monitor. Now that I have it I will tell you the same thing I always told him, your body will tell you everything you need to know about your HR if you listen to it. Neither your body nor your HRM will tell you if you are on the verge of a cardiac "event", you need your doctor for that. I think that HRMs became popular when people used them to train with. These days people rely more on power meters and the HRM I bought includes a power meter function which is giving me more amusement than the HR does. If you have exercised regularly for a long period of time you probably know quite well when you are pushing yourself too hard. There is nothing wrong with getting an HRM but I don't think it is a necessity.

Ken

Am I supposed to be paying attention to my heart rate when I ride? I have absolutely no idea what my heart rate is when I'm riding.


What?! You dont have that IPhone app??

What's an IPhone:)

I know we've been through this conversation before, but I'll give it another go. I guess it depends what you mean by "junk". If it's recognized that, at best, it represents only an average, I wouldn't say it's junk (altho there is reason to suspect it's accuracy even as an average-- more on that below). I would say it's useless for any particular individual. If 220-age works for you, it is purely by coincidence. After all you can pick a formula virtually at random for x-age = MHR, where x is between 275 and 150 and it will be accurate for someone. It's like saying the average male wears a 42 regular suit, I wear a 42 regular, so that must be what everyone should wear. Even if 220-age is an accurate average, the range is so wide that it's no help to an individual.

And, as I said, there is reason to suspect it's accuracy as an average. The original data that led to the formula was not based on a representative sample of the general population. It was literally whoever walked in the door. including smokers and people with heart disease. Further, because it included people who weren't used to exercising, it is theorized that many prematurely stopped without truly reaching their MHR (see generally http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/maximum-heart-rate-theory-is-challenged.html?src=pm). I think it is for this reason that 220-age more often leads to a too low result than a too high one.

The formulas derived from better data generally yield higher results, especially for the masters population (http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Myth-Of-Maximum-Heart-Rate-=-220-Age&id=678707). However, the scatter is so wide that no formula is useful to predict a particular individual's MHR. " Exercise physiologist Dr. Fritz Hagerman, who has studied world-class rowers for three decades, has said that the idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate is ludicrous: he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220, and others on the same team and with the same ability, with maximum rates of just 160 [id.]."

BTW, while my MHR is above the average( ~195-200, 58 yo), I in no way believe that this is "better." I have talked to many with lower MHRs who can kick my butt.

Hi Chinarider,
I remember our previous discussion on this topic. I have read the articles you linked and I have a question. Is it your perspective that 220-age should no longer be used as a starting point because a more accurate estimation formula has been developed, or is it that no formula at all should be used? Please clarify.

As to your example, it would of course be ridiculous to assume that because a population average (e.g. size 42 coat) happens to be true of me that a 42 will fit everyone. That is not what I'm saying at all. But if you were making coats for sale and the best population mean you have is size 42, you would want to make a lot of coat sizes at or near 42 and fewer progressively as you went to bigger and smaller sizes, would you not? It seems like I'm hearing a lot of people are saying "Well, I don't wear a 42, so that average size 42 is bogus and meaningless". This I am willing to respectfully argue about.... er, discus at length.

Perhaps our disagreement is more semantic than anything. It is one thing (IMO) to acknowledge that there is measurement error (perhaps a lot) and that an average should be used with caution initially, and quite another to use labels like "bogus" and "useless" just because there is known variation around a mean. In a practical sense, most of us figure out about where our MaxHR is empirically and work from there anyway don't we?

The documented inadequacy of the formula is that it is very conservative. If they recommend that you also consult your doctor (as I said) they are covering themselves pretty well. In the US you can sue anyone for anything and sometimes win no matter how stupid your claims. So nothing guarantees that you cannot be sued, following accepted norms does diminish the plaintiffs chances of success. That's all we can say, the details are in the hands of the jury.


The documented inadequacy of the formula is that even if it is an accurate average, the scatter is so wide that it is of no utility for an individual to determine proper training HRs. While it is probably too low more often, it can also be too high.. From the NYT article cited above, "Dr. Wilmore, the exercise physiologist, said it was clear from the scattered data points that maximum heart rates could vary widely from the formula. ''If it says 150, it could be 180 and it could be 120,'' Dr. Wilmore said." "The danger, he said, is that when doctors use that formula to decide when to end a treadmill test, they can inadvertently mislead themselves and their patients. Some patients may be stopping too soon and others may seem to have a heart problem because they never can get to what is supposed to be their maximum rate.

''Some people are being pushed and others are not,'' Dr. Lauer said. ''In my view, that is unacceptable.''

I do agree that it would be hard for someone to successfully sue a health club for using 220-age, but that is because of other factors (e.g. use of releases and advice to consult a Dr.) than because the formula is an accepted way to determine individual training HRs, because it's not, at least not among those who study the subject.

Is it your perspective that 220-age should no longer be used as a starting point because a more accurate estimation formula has been developed, or is it that no formula at all should be used? Please clarify.
I don't believe any formula should be used for the purpose of an individual determining proper training HRs. Not even as a starting point. I think using perceived exertion is better than any formula. If one doesn't want to get a controlled MHR test or do a self test, there are various protocols for someone to determine threshold HR, which is probably more important than MHR for training purposes. This (http://faculty.css.edu/tboone2/asep/Robergs2.pdf) study of various MHR formulas concluded that there is no acceptable method to predict MHR from a formula.

To continue the haberdashery example, I agree it would make sense for the retailer to order more 42s than 36s or 50s, but that doesn't help an individual consumer (or trainee/athlete) determine his correct size. If you didn't know your suit size, you wouldn't go to a store and start trying on 42s as a starting point; you'd get measured, as someone trying to determine correct training HRs should (assuming they want to use HR as a training guide). The average suit size is useless to me in trying to determine what size to wear.


In a practical sense, most of us figure out about where our MaxHR is empirically and work from there anyway don't we?

Exactly. And that's what we should do rather than rely on a formula that has no predictive usefulness. And I do believe the formula is "useless" as a guide to an individual's training either for safety or effectiveness purposes. It simply doesn't give one any useful information (as the average suit size doesn't give me useful information in trying to determine my size).

I do agree that it would be hard for someone to successfully sue a health club for using 220-age, but that is because of other factors (e.g. use of releases and advice to consult a Dr.) than because the formula is an accepted way to determine individual training HRs, because it's not, at least not among those who study the subject.

I'm not defending the formula's accuracy, it is quite inaccurate for me and the concern on my friend's face when I tell him I routinely blow by its recommendations is entirely misplaced. There is some legal protection to be had by following industry norms, no matter how inaccurate they are and since you and I agree that other disclaimers and advice are always coupled with the formula we are not really arguing about anything. I don't study the matter, I just listen to what people tell me and no one I know feels that the standard formula overpredicts their max HR, even the ones that slavishly follow its advice. The one or two reports of that here in this thread are the first I have heard, ever, so I have to wonder if the distribution is Gaussian. If it were (with a mean equal to the forumla's prediction) then close to half the people I know, and possibly a small majority at that, would report that it overpredicts their max HR. I suspect it is either a skewed distribution or the standard formula gives a value well below the mean at least for people who exercise regularly, the only ones in my experience who know the formula or worry about such things.

If you go to a doctor to get a max HR test and they stop the test when you hit the standard formula's prediction then you need to consult another doctor! The people I have talked to who have had a stress test were pushed until they felt that they could go on no longer. That procedure should reveal your true max HR to a useful level of accuracy. Other types of doctors may be able to test you properly but if you really want to know then I suppose you should use a doctor/facility that specializes in sports medicine since they are very unlikely to use inaccurate methods. For most of us one of the available self tests (http://www.howtobefit.com/determine-maximum-heart-rate.htm) are probably accurate enough, given that your doctor is comfortable with your exercise level.

Ken

If you go to a doctor to get a max HR test and they stop the test when you hit the standard formula's prediction then you need to consult another doctor!

Me too. Unfortunately, many Drs are not really knowledgeable about exercise physiology, and their patients know less. It's the blind leading the blind. Many so called physical trainers advise their clients based on 220-age, it's still found on posters in gyms and on stickers on treadmills and ellipticals, etc. While there may be some mention in passing or small print saying this is an average only, it's still promoted as being a the way one should determine training levels.

This subject has been a pet peeve of mine since the early 90s when, as a runner, I first got interested in HR training and had my MHR measured in a university physiology lab at 207. At the time I participated in a running forum and got into a long drawn out debate with a nurse (for a cardiologist) who insisted (in a patronizing manner) that 220-age was perfectly accurate for everyone and that I was endangering my health by exceeding it. At the time, I didn't have the benefit of the articles and studies I've cited here (as well as others saying basically the same thing). All I had was common sense and anecdotal evidence from talking to others. There was no convincing her. So if I seem a little overzealous at times, that's way.

The only way to safely and accurately determine your maximum heart rate is to have a properly supervised exercise stress test. From that information an exercise range can be established for you. Keep in mind that is subject to periodic change as your fitness, weight etc. change over time.

Talk to your Doctor about it.

If you don't want to do that, then read through the guides here: http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/index.html
Paying attention to Measuring Physical Activity Intensity and or google for Rate of Perceived Exertion.

Will you blow up ?

No, once you go anaerobic you will, for lack of a better description, collapse or your heart will fail.

Collapsing means, just that, if you are on a bike you will simply fall over and you may or may not have the ability to put out your hand to break your fall.

Among other things, I'm a 53 yr old heart attack survivor, with a bum heart FWIW.

Just like it says on the exercise machines, talk to your Doctor first before you take on strenuous exercise, like many of the others have advised you.

Having a HA is learning the hard way :thumb:

An ounce of prevention .... and all

The only way to safely and accurately determine your maximum heart rate is to have a properly supervised exercise stress test. From that information an exercise range can be established for you. Keep in mind that is subject to periodic change as your fitness, weight etc. change over time.

Talk to your Doctor about it.

Most of us don't need to know our max HR to Nobel Prize winning accuracy, we just want to set our HRMs and adjust our training routines against numbers that are appropriate to us personally rather than relying on a one size fits none (or so far, one!) formula. A medical test of max HR (and many sports medicine facilities can give you max VO2 and other information as well for a fee) is great. But for many if not most of us one of the self tests is accurate enough. I don't think any of us here plan to win Olympic medals.

As your experience unfortunately illustrates there are risks involved. If you have been vigorously exercising for some extended time then taking a self test of max HR is no more risky than your normal exercise routine. The step test in fact would have very little risk for anyone who can climb a few flights of stairs, it is not taxing at all. If you have not been exercising at all then of course, consult your doctor before beginning any exercise program. Your doctor should be able to advise you if you are at risk for a heart attack and how best to begin exercising. Anyone in the 50+ group should be seeing a doctor annually anyway and discussing their activity level with him/her. I do.

Ken

...read through the guides here: http://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/everyone/guidelines/index.html


You prove my point. From your link

"For moderate-intensity physical activity, a person's target heart rate should be 50 to 70% of his or her maximum heart rate. This maximum rate is based on the person's age. An estimate of a person's maximum age-related heart rate can be obtained by subtracting the person's age from 220. For example, for a 50-year-old person, the estimated maximum age-related heart rate would be calculated as 220 - 50 years = 170 beats per minute (bpm). The 50% and 70% levels would be:

•50% level: 170 x 0.50 = 85 bpm, and
•70% level: 170 x 0.70 = 119 bpm
Thus, moderate-intensity physical activity for a 50-year-old person will require that the heart rate remains between 85 and 119 bpm during physical activity."

Even though the word "estimate" is used, this isn't properly explained. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Most of us don't need to know our max HR to Nobel Prize winning accuracy, we just want to set our HRMs and adjust our training routines against numbers that are appropriate to us personally rather than relying on a one size fits none (or so far, one!) formula. A medical test of max HR (and many sports medicine facilities can give you max VO2 and other information as well for a fee) is great. But for many if not most of us one of the self tests is accurate enough. I don't think any of us here plan to win Olympic medals.

As your experience unfortunately illustrates there are risks involved. If you have been vigorously exercising for some extended time then taking a self test of max HR is no more risky than your normal exercise routine. The step test in fact would have very little risk for anyone who can climb a few flights of stairs, it is not taxing at all. If you have not been exercising at all then of course, consult your doctor before beginning any exercise program. Your doctor should be able to advise you if you are at risk for a heart attack and how best to begin exercising. Anyone in the 50+ group should be seeing a doctor annually anyway and discussing their activity level with him/her. I do.

Ken

Ken:

Whether or not you want to know what your maximum heart rate is of course, up to you. It is certainly not needed to exercise effectively.

I merely pointed out amid the obvious confusion that if one is interested in determining that number, safely and accurately, then that is the process. Personally, I don't presume to speak for the many or most of us, who ever that is / are. :)
The exercise stress test is in no way a "one-size fits all" formulae.

Setting all that aside:

Using the published guidelines for healthy exercise / activity in conjunction with the RPE scale is more than adequate. Also, as you are probably well aware, many HRM models will, over time, sort out and quantify the respective exercise zones for you, with or with out you entering a max HR.

Higher max heart rate does not mean better fitness. It just means a higher max heart rate.

+1 yep. What I am more worried about is the minimum heart rate. I'm trying to avoid getting that down to zero, although we all hit that eventually.

OP, As others have said, check with Doc which is easy to do at the yearly physical. Since you are motivated enough to ask about HR and buy a monitor, I think you are on the right path. Others have provided some good discussion for you to think about. One thing that has not been mentioned is the use of heart rate to check your rate of recovery as a proxy for fitness and possibly cardiac health. After you complete a climb or other harder effort, see how long it takes for your heart rate to drop below 120 and or the rate of change per minute. Dropping 25 beats per minute after stopping and slow spinning (no effort) is good. When I returned to cycling, my HR would stay up and not drop very fast. Today, it drops at a rate of 30 beats per minute and the moment I let pressure off the pedals, it drops a couple of beats. You can use this simple test so that you do not work to hard. If your HR stays high for several minutes, ride easier until you give your cardiovascular system a chance to adapt to the new lifestyle. Good luck.