Max HR *increasing* with age?
 

I know the dogma about HR diminishing with age doesn't hold for everybody, but have any of you experienced a MHR that has increased with age?

My measure of MHR is admittedly unscientific - it's really just the HR I've noted during repeated maximal efforts.

I discovered cycling when I was 49 (I'm 56 now), and though I had no HRM on my bike, in the winter I rode a stationary recumbent bike in the gym and on that I found that the MHR I would see was 175 BPM. Repeatedly over the course of my first two winters, when I did repeated hard intervals, I would get up to 175 BPM, and never one BPM higher I figured that my MHR had to be close to that.

About 2 years into my life as a cyclist, I got a HRM for my Garmin. The highest HR I saw in those days, getting dropped while climbing hills with people younger and stronger than me was 178 BPM. Again, I saw that number repeatedly over a period of maybe 2 years, when I was at my apparent limit, but never saw anything 1 BPM greater. I figured that my MHR was maybe a little above that limit, and that the difference between that value and the value I saw in the gym was a difference in the measurement devices or that I pushed myself a little harder on a real bike.

A couple of years later, that value crept up to 180. Again, it's a value I saw repeatedly over a period of time, but not higher.

Last year, for the first time, I saw values above 180. Not very much, but on several occasions I saw up to 183.

Today, on a ride with some younger people, pulling at 25 MPH for a stretch, it seems I hit 185 BPM. I am surprised by this, because I was definitely working hard, but didn't have that awful feeling that sometimes accompanies maxing out.

So - unscientific measurement practices and my MHR has always been the same or even decreasing? Instrumental drift? Or is my MHR increasing?

MHR is most likely very activity and mental state dependent.

I "retired" to bike riding from rock climbing as a primary activity. (66 YO)

I can't get even close to the MHR that even a relatively easy climb will induce on the bike.

Another thing that may be at play is that a really good indicator of fitness is HR variability (how fast your HR responds to workload change)

That might be pushing your max up as a combination of being in better shape and a competitive mindset.

Max heart rate numbers are averages based on age and average fitness levels. At any age the max heart rate can increase with improved fitness, so if over a short span of years, it's very possible for your fitness to continue to improve as you age, especially if moving from average fitness to athletic fitness.

I don't think mine is decreasing with age ... or at least, not much.

When I was about 33, I tested myself on a particular hill and could hit about 195 bpm, but could not get over that. And 195 bpm was a flat out, everything I had, seeing red and dizzy effort.

According to that silly 220-age formula, I should have been at 187.

Now I'm 50 and should be at 170, and yet I can hit 176 bpm without too much difficulty. I haven't tried to see what my max would be. One day we'll have to find an appropriate hill and try all out, max effort hill repeats.

You have answered your own question.

To start off with, you have to be fully recovered to test max. Your observations are invalid unless you were 100% recovered from previous efforts. There are other conditions too, all of which have to be met for you to be able to say that any given observation was actual max.

The bottom line is that what you have observed is likely not your max.


-Tim-

Based on my experience, max heart rate has been decreasing with age. Back in my 50's I could max out over 200 bpm any time I was putting out an extreme effort.

Now, in my 60's (67) my full on max is in the 175 range. After my fake heart attack my cardiologist told me that 165 should be my max, plus my GP put me on statins so that may be holding my heart back a bit too (but I don't know this to be a fact).

So for me, yes, my max has decreased with age though there may be additional factors too.

Rick / OCRR

I find that my heart rate has slowed over the last 10 years. I'm certain that my heart beat is producing greater volume than 10 years ago, I'm faster and can climb moderately steep hills with less effort. However, I'm no longer seeing those 175 bpm spikes while exerting myself. 165 seems to be the new maximum for me.

I should push myself to total exhaustion on the trainer, just to see what happens to my heart rate. I might get a higher value than I can while riding longer rides outdoors.

Unless one is using heart rate as a training tool, is there any reason to care about max heart rate? I figure my heart works it's rate out on it's own.

Well, that's why I'm interested in checking what my max HR is.

Max heart is a pretty useless metric whether you are training with heart rate or not.

Heart rate training zones should be set up as a percentage of lactic threshold, not max heart rate.


-Tim-

I think OP was just referring to the fact that he is having an increase in his HR high as he is getting older thinking it should be the opposite. LTH is the thing too know if really into training.

My achievable high HR is lowering as I am getting older and surely do in part to my cancer treatment. The thing most impressive for me regarding HR is the 32BPM recorded when I was having a pre-op EKG for my first cancer operation 2 years ago at the age of 64.

When I started cycling more seriously I was 48. At the beginning my max HR from running was higher than cycling. During the first yr or two my max HR during cycling increased until it matched what I can get to running. It stayed constant for a number of years and I'm not sure what it is anymore. Max HR is not something I see on a weekly or monthly basis. It's usually a once a year kind of effort in the summer up some hill. I'm not motivated enough to test regularly :)

Yes, no doubt that LTH is more rigorous and useful, but over a period of time, the trend in max observed HR is surprising to me. TimothyH should note that I did not claim to be measuring my true MHR, but rather that repeated observations over an interval of time gave me an precise (not accurate) estimate of max observed (not maximum observable) HR and that my assumption (possibly erroneous) is that this may correlate with MHR.

328? That sounds like tachycardia?

Also, as to improved fitness through time, I started cycling in 2009 and by 2011 I had reached a level of fitness approximately similar to that which I have maintained since (except in years sidelined by injuries), as judged by metrics such as distances, average speeds, etc. In other words, I am about as fast and strong and fit now as I was in 2011, give or take.

I can't remember where I read it, but it was in a scientific paper which stated that you cannot increase your max HR. It is what it is and it will decrease with age. A better calculation for HR max is (210-(0.5 x age)) - 5% body weight in pounds +4 for male, 0 for female. For me at age 76 and weighing 215 pounds, it works out at 165 and I haven't been able to exceed this (unless I was in a-fib!).
On the other hand, as you get fitter, your resting HR will decrease, but this decrease may also be as a result of sick sinus syndrome due to aging.

[QUOTE=
328? That sounds like tachycardia?
[/QUOTE]

I think he wrote 32 bpm, which, in itself should probably be cause for concern. If it's 32 while awake, what is it while asleep? Mine is 42-45 while resting, but before I get out of bed it's 38 and my cardiologist says if it goes much lower I might need a pacemaker. But I'm OLD!!

Oh, you're right. 32 is another matter completely.

I've read similar about MHR being unrelated to fitness and simply a product of your genes, age, etc.

But you'll find many people on this board for whom the standard formulas do not apply. So, for me (210-0.5*56-0.05*165+4)=178, and as noted in the original post, my MHR must be at least 185, presently.

It was 32bpm after resting while the nurse hooked up the leads. The second nurse stated that she would not have an accurate reading unless I elevated the rate. I proceeded to move around until she said OK at 39bpm and they got a good line recording. After completion the nurse who was at the machine noted that a previous EKG from a number of years prior when I had another surgery I had at that time a reading at 39bpm. She said that is was a bit unusual to be the same recording rate at the age I was for the number of years between.

Different heart rate monitors may measure brief periods differently. That is one may average over a few seconds and another over several seconds. Also your max heart rate will be different with different actives. In that the MHR for a 2 to 5 minute track sprint will be different than going up a steep hill after a ½ hour ride. While running, swimming or rowing may have different MHR's.

The Scientific doesn't match my reality
 

Every individual heart rate is different. That formula was created by Doctors during a flight to a conference and was never intended to become the reference it has.

When I started riding in 2009 at age 67 my maximum rate was 167 bpm minutes and that over the handle bars recovery. As I became more fit it went to 192 which when it happened caused me to drape over the handle bar trying to recover again. Last summer I again revisited that level but continued to ride in recover and I set personal bests in certain benchmark ride segments. Every year since 2010 have got my heart to that level in really hard climbs.

My resting rate is higher than most in my condition, the mid 60s, and according to my Doc that everyone's heart is different and mine beats faster. My wife's observation is that it's because it has to work harder because it is tiny and cold:)

Anyway I am soon to be 75 and feel much fitter than when I was 60 partially because I lost 50 pounds and mostly because I took up cycling. On the other hand I ride with one friend that is 79 that drops me on every hill. Frustrating if it weren't he inspires me that I might be that good some day.

Bob

The Scientific doesn't match my reality
 

Every individual heart rate is different. That formula was created by Doctors during a flight to a conference and was never intended to become the reference it has.

When I started riding in 2009 at age 67 my maximum rate was 167 bpm minutes. As I became more fit it went to 192 which when it happened caused me to drape over the handle bar trying to recover. Last summer I again revisited that level but continue to ride in recover and I set personal bests in certain benchmark ride segments. Every year since 2010 have got my heart to that level in really hard climbs.

My resting rate is higher than most in my condition, the mid 60s, and according to my Doc that everyone's heart is different and mine beats faster. My wife's observation is that it's because it has to work harder because it is tiny and cold:)

Anyway I am soon to be 75 and feel much fitter than when I was 60 partially because I lost 50 pounds and mostly because I took up cycling. On the other hand I ride with one friend that is 79 that drops me on every hill. Frustrating if it weren't he inspires me that I might be that good some day.

Bob

My resting heart rate has always been faster than normal, usually around 80 bpm no matter how good my conditioning is. Always has been since I was a kid.

I'm not sure I even want to know my max bpm while riding.

Because it's typical for a new cyclist to huff and puff and feel stressed during a perceived hard interval, he never takes his HR to it's max. As a general rule, it takes a lab or a seriously competitive situation to see your max HR. Join the fastest group in your area and ride with them. Do everything you can to keep up, and you will likely see your max HR. It's usually accompanied with sick feeling in the stomach. If there are no fast groups, then go to a lab. Its only about $200 and they will find your max HR, as well as your lactate threshold and power threshold.

Increasing HR with age might be a sign of cardiac drift. Not a big deal, as it affects lots of people. I have it. I can ride at 175 HR at a constant effort, and after a while it starts creeping up...until it hits about 191. Problem is the efficiency drops with increasing HR since stroke volume drops. There is a grain of thought out there that people chronic cardiac drift a lot might want to consider a beta blocker. Its contrary to all you read and hear with regards to performance but, if it mitigates the drift then your stroke volume is better and thus performance. i guess it's a tradeoff.

Interesting about the pacemaker. I was always pleased to measure my resting heart rate (before rolling out of bed) around 42 bpm. Patted myself on the back for all the cycling and other things that contributed to this 'aerobic fitness'. ECG in Dec (prior to kidney stone removal) indicated Left Bundle Branch Block. No one has explained this to me in detail, but what I read indicates that a pacemaker could be in my future. Maybe time to get a cardiologist.




edit: Relative to Max HR, in my mid50s (last use of a HRM) i had a max of about 178, as measured by the sustained effort on a moderately steep hill after a good warm-up. Given instrumentation quirks, i counted the max number that repeated for several seconds, not just a one time read-out.


In my mid40s, max HR was about 185. I was most proud, back then, of having the ability to ride many miles at about 90% of max and also to recover quickly from max to 'easy cruising' heart rate. And to do it regularly throughout a ride.


Now in my mid60s, I have been advised by 2 doctors that experimenting with Max HR is not advisable. the bundle branch block is probably further evidence of this being true. So I take heart hoping that "a high max HR is not necessary for a healthy overall lifestyle" = a factual statement. I'm not trying to be athletically competitive, just athletic for my age and my outdoor hobbies.


Who really knows what tomorrow brings. Maybe new directions.....

One of our new adult speedskaters (age 47 & a sprinter) went in for his annual physical and came home with a pacemaker.
Three weeks later, he was back speedskating.