chasm54

Ah, bless. In my experience (I worked in healthcare most of my life) very few doctors, let alone chiropractors, have much interest or expertise in training for endurance sports. If you want to address the arguments, feel free to address them.

GeorgeBMac

Agreed (except where there are functional problems involved such as valve problems or heart failure). But then I never said that it was a limiting factor in performance.

The trouble is: the performance (only) guys think ALL training is simply to improve performance and simply can't see any other training regimen. In actuality, there are a number of different training goals --- such as a longer, healthier life.

GeorgeBMac

There are many reasons and goal for training. What the best training regimen is depends on a number of factors -- including your current physical state as well as your goals...

a 70 year old, over weight grandpa may take up a cycling training regimen, but I doubt he will be overly concerned (at least initially) with his LTHR. And, there is a whole wide range of statuses and goals between the 20 something jock whose life evolves around cycling and that 70 year old grandpa.

And, as I said initially, for a reasonably healthy person, using the MaxHR formula is OK -- until he is able to determine his actual max hr. But, as you point out, he must understand the limitations of using an average.

gregf83 

Sure. But I don't understand your earlier statement that training using maxHR is somehow preferable to using LTHR. Or better, yet ignoring your HR altogether if you're just looking for a healthier life. There's no need to monitor HR to gain significant health benefits from exercise.

Null66

Don't take my word for it. 220-age. Haskell and Fox.
Dr. Haskell has "laughed about",[SUP][14][/SUP] as the formula "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule people's training."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_rate

Machka 

I wonder if Scott Bolton imagined that his question would result in a thread like this.

Has anyone else noticed that Scott has not been back into this thread?

achoo

achoo

Oh, come on. He stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

achoo

If you're still talking about max HR, you are entirely missing the point of tracking HR while exercising.

If you are tracking your HR, the only reason to do that is to exercise in certain HR zones - whatever your goals may be. And to set those zones, LTHR is accurate wheres max HR is useless.

hamster

You are correct, but I think you are missing the reason why max HR enters the picture in the first place.

Determining your HRmax is _hard_. Hard as in "very unpleasant" as well as "difficult to do correctly". I posted a plot here some time ago plotting a number of attempts to hit my HRmax by doing intervals, most of them terminating 10+ bpm below real, known HRmax.

Determining your LTHR is also hard, but in a different way. A cyclist can do it with a 2x20 test. But there are more runners than cyclists, and most beginning runners can't run 5 minutes continuous, let alone 2x20. A beginning cyclist has to do 2x20 a couple of times before he/she learns to maintain roughly constant effort for 20 minutes.

Enter 220-age based heart rate zones. They can be used by anyone on day 1 of their fitness program, they require no physician-supervised painful testing, and, if they are not all that accurate - that's the price you have to pay.

ModeratedUser150120149

Thank you! Thank You! Thank You!!

This thread has taken a tired old subject that has used countless terabytes of disk space and given it a level of silliness and humor that gave me a much needed laugh on this rainy day.

Onward!

GeorgeBMac

I never said that one was preferable to the other. I did say that different people have different physical statuses, training goals and regimens -- and LTHR is not the one and only thing everybody needs to be training to...

But, yes, even if all you want is a 'healthier life", HR is meaningful. There is a difference if you are working at 50%, 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% of your max... It's why medical people advise their clients to get in the zone where they can "talk but not sing". It's a crude way of targeting a heart rate zone even if you do not have a heart rate monitor. Its no more accurate than the max heart rate calculation that has been so badly trashed in this thread. But, for most beginners it is close enough to get them an effective workout without killing them.

GeorgeBMac

Thanks. Well -- and clearly -- stated...

RR3

With all these high mx HR, you all need to go on Statins. If that don't fix ya, try some SSRIs

CharlyAlfaRomeo

Statins are for lowering cholesterol and SSRIs are anti-depressants so I'm not sure why you think either would do something to a high max HR.

I also don't know why you think there's something wrong with having a high max HR.

RR3

Don't know why you think I think there is something wrong with a higher heart rate.

Take either and tell me whether your Time Trial times decrease or increase.

The variation in max heart rates are not just due to age or genetics. Medicines affect max HR.

CharlyAlfaRomeo

Because you recommended everyone with a high max HR go on those drugs. You're advocating people take medication to lower their HR for no apparent reason.

Why? Are you actually recommending someone take drugs with known side effects to improve on bike performance? Not sure what this has to do with the discussion at hand.

I don't believe anyone stated otherwise so far in this thread so that's nice I guess.

ScottBolton

I went out on my bike and left you lot to rant about chiropractors and the like!

Actually I've just enjoyed reading all the posts; I'm heading out this weekend to determine my LTHR - warm up / 10 minutes full tilt / determine the average in the next 20 minutes at full tilt / collapse in a gibbering heap / eat cookies.

All (well most) of the info and advice is much appreciated.

S

ckFoxTrot

Going by this, what are the best percentages of max HR for improving cardio fitness?

Looigi

IDK of if it's limiting in performance, but for what it's worth, heart rate max is a physiologic limit in the hearts pacemaking mechanism beyond which your heart can't go unless something goes wrong, so it goes as fast as needed until it reaches that limit. The volume it can pump is also a function of its volume, and endurance athletes have significantly bigger hearts with thicker walls, so the heart is adapting to the increased workload making it capable of pumping blood at a greater rate.

As for max heart rate formulas, they are no more than simple mathematical models of a collection of data. Where it goes wrong is in the interpretation and simplistic application of them.

gregf83 

I don't think you necessarily reach the physiologic limits of your heart while cycling. I know when I started cycling I couldn't reach the same max on the bike vs running. I also get a higher max when it's hot out so the heart takes care of what my legs need plus the additional load brought on by extra heat. I haven't tested it but I suspect my maxHR would be higher cross country skiing than biking as well.

That's why I don't believe the maxHR you observe while riding a bike is the highest rate your heart is capable of pumping. This is just my opinion and I haven't seen any research one way or the other.

caloso

If I take 220-age=maxHR and solve for age, the formula predicts that I am 23. That's something.

Mvcrash

My max rate is right at when I say to myself. " I'm going to die......I can't breathe anymore..." Then I keep going until my legs fail. If I have a heart attack and die, at least I was healthy.

GeorgeBMac

Most guidelines seem to recommend a minimum of 30 minutes of moderate exercise 5 days a week. Or 20 minutes of vigorous 3 days week.

The CDC defines moderate exercise as 50%-70% of the max for that person. Vigorous exercise is 70%-85% of the max.

Or, in a study published a few days ago the American Heart Assoc stated that more than an hour a day of moderate exercise or half an hour of vigorous exercise may lower your chances of heart failure by 46%.

But I have never seen anybody provide a maximum amount of exercise or even an optimum amount. But I do remember seeing a study a while back that suggested that benefit from exercise may be a 'J shaped' curve where the benefits drop off with either to little or too much exercise. But, as I remember the 'too much' was in the realm of consistent marathon runners.

Then we get to HIIT training that mixes moderate and vigorous (or higher) exercise: it seems that that may have the optimum benefit of all.

p.s. -- I see that Chasm54 gave a far more complete answer in the thread on heart rate. I would go with what he says.

CharlyAlfaRomeo

I can't say I agree with this. Everyone is different and I know people who are strong on the bike and can max out but due to never having trained hard at running can't max out in that discipline.

Personally my max is the same between the two when I'm well trained, I can see 190 at the top of a climb on my bike or sprinting at the end of a 10 k run, but I've never been fit enough to hit 190 in both sports simultaneously.