A few weeks ago, I did a MHR test on my stationnary bike and max out at 195 bpm. I build my training schedule with the famous zones and tried to hold a 10 min TT at the predicted 182, never got there .. blew up and did a second test of MHR which gave me 180 bpm. This number fits wih the predicted value that my polar is giving me. From a few tests, it seems 164 bpm are sustainable for a bike TT and gives me about 92% of MHR at 180. The last few days, I ran on a threadmill 2* 10 min TT at a comfortable pace (everything is relative, what I really mean is sustainble without blowingup).. and found out I was in the 175-180.. and had about 5 pbm to spare, which brings me back to the 195 @ 92% .. I understand that running and biking may have different MHR, but would'nt they be closer ..
Due respect sincerely intended. Respect for your effort as well.
You have the ability to ride hard. 195 is a good number. Ride hard frequently. Race like a crazed animal! Rest well often.
Don't let 'em blow by, while you're reading the monitor making calculations. Too many numbers.
"Boys - Don't get caught watchin' the paint dry!" - Hopper
MMM. My Polar predicts my MHR 4 beats too low. Still, that's close. Some days I can't get it over the Polar prediction. The only way I can reach MHR is to climb really hard at about 95% of MHR for at least 10 minutes, then come out of the saddle and really blast it. I can't come anywhere near that on the trainer. That said, my MHR and LT vary all over the place depending on my training load and where I am in the cycle. After a really hard double, my MHR and LT are about the same, about 90% of normal LT.
So like Bici3 said, I try not to obsess about it. Still, one wants zones. I use my "fresh" LT, which is 92% of my "fresh" MHR. That works out. When I'm feeling good, I can climb for an hour at that LTHR. And using zones based on that HR doesn't seem to overtrain me.
This works out for me, even when my systems are shot after a major ride. I'm mostly doing recovery and endurance rides during the next week, and those lower HRs seem fine to use for those purposes, even though the higher HRs are not available to me - unattainable.
As far as running and cycling MHRs are concerned, I'm not a runner. No experience.
So if I am reading this correctly you are also experiencing a large variation depending on the day, training cycles, etc .. but 180 predicted and 195 seemed quite different .. especially when you get recommendations of hitting 92 % ... OK I will try not to over analyse.. Thks