Some have strongly implied that max heart rate, and therefore this thread, are useless. Au contraire. It is useful once an individual has determined what their personal heart rates are. How useful is a matter of opinion.

Much more useful is Perceived Exertion Level, or even the classic Talk Test. These are also rough gauges but are much closer to indicating exertion level for training and performance purposes.

As a sidebar, although they bought heart rate monitors for everyone's use my gym has relegated them to a dusty drawer.

Thanks for the article reference. I checked my heart rate recovery rate, that was mentioned in the article above. It was not in the favorable range, but then I agree that I am probably not a trained athlete at this point despite some exercise that I have recently been doing. I can monitor this and watch my recovery rate progress.

You have hit the nail completely here. WHEN I was doing crosscountry running I was fit and I was good in the Area. Up to National level but that was only just. I Was probably in the better reaches of Recovery time- could probably stay in the upper reaches of my heart rate for extended periods and didn't even realise it.

40 to 30 years later and all I want to do is remain reasonably fit. No need to hit my max on every ride- no need to keep at the level where I can only just breath. All I want to do is go out for a ride in comfort. The mere fact that I am still fit enough to climb hills that have others walking- that the legs last long enough to do a Century- and that when I have to go to the cardiologist for a check up all he has to say is- "You are fine- see you next year" is enough for me.

Where is the "I don't have the slightest idea" option?

Mine appears to be 176 these days. It was 189 before the surgeon sliced away half of my left lung, but I haven't been able to top 176 since.

With respect to heart rate measurement, the rate of drop is the most important metric. I have posted numerous times that riders when training should check the time it takes for the heart to drop below 120 which is in general active recovery for most. If one is riding at 140 heart rate and stops, the heart rate should drop from its current level to below 120 within 2 minutes and preferably faster. I used this gage to check progress and to not overtrain. And if I did too much too soon, the amount of recovery time was significantly increased. IMO, when most people start or return to cycling, it will take months for the heart to adapt to the increased training and the rate of heart rate drop will be poor. It was for me.

Now training with power, I use the Training Stress Score TSS in Training Peaks to gage training load and my heart rate drops fast so that metric is not as useful any longer as well as max heart rate and other heart rate related matters. I do continue to monitor resting heart rate and heart rate trends as they relate to power. I used to take my heart for granted and think that since it was smooth muscle it had infinite endurance and I only had to worry if it quit beating. According to Coggan and Allen in Training and Racing with a Power Meter, ones heart does get tired and needs rest beyond sleep. Over time, it will not beat as fast and more recovery time is required. So resting my heart is as important as resting my legs.

Will, I think you are being very wise to back off if you feel light-headed; it's a great example of listening to your body.

When I restarted cycling I was concerned about my heart, and she placed me in some stress-testing and imaging to assess it. Luckily no problems, but my family does have risk factors. I am cautioned to come back for re-assessment if I feel light-headed while exercising.

I think you might be too picky about needing to find a Competent Sports Doctor. I would suggest bringing the concern to your general practitioner and be sure you explain your level of capability. Ask if they are familiar with the norms for people in your situation, and that you are concerned that you might need to speak to someone who is. This would at least (for my med coverage, at least) get you covered to consult with a specialist.

My general practitioner surprised me - she was aware of the problem with heart rate predictors, and suggested lightheadedness as one criterion for setting a limit in practice. I don't really need to use MHR to set training, since I have taken a LTHR test.

Do not limit that thinking to this thread.

Is there a formula to determine how long it should take the HR to drop below 120 from any starting HR?

When do I have to tell you who won?

I see the point of this criterion, but is "recover to 120" a standard value? Seems to me it should be based on your training zone values.

I have many ideas about many things, just not this particular one.

In the NYT article it was 20 beats per minute which seems about right. I have seen as high as 25 beats per minute. The point is that if you are at threshold, which in general, is around 160 bpm, the heart rate will drop to 120 bpm in 2 minutes.

Yes, I defined 120 bpm as active recovery (zone 1) for many people. However, if your zone 1 is 115 then use 115 bpm. This is more of an indicator than a lab measurement. If you hr drops quickly, that is very good. If it stays up at 160 and then drops very slowly, that was a very hard effort for you and may be too hard for your current fitness. I think it is nice to have a gauge to try to get a handle on how hard you are working your cardio system. You do not need a HR monitor just a watch and take your pulse. This is very good technique, IMO, if you are doing intervals to know if you are working too hard or not hard enough

It's not a new value. Back in my track days we did an indoor workout that had us run a hard 200 meters, immediately followed by 1 minute of single skip jump rope, then recovery. Recovery was until our HR got to 120 bpm then it was back to the start line. I must have been in really good shape or my teammates were dogging it because I remember being a couple reps ahead of them while they stood there taking their pulses with fingers on their necks. That was the hardest and most painful workout we did, we would ask the coaches "what did we to piss you off this time?". There is no worse feeling than going to the start line with legs and arms that would not move.

Will - when I asked my cardiologist, who is also a triathlete, if it was OK to go to HRmax he said yes as long as I don't feel dizzy or have any chest pain. The fact that you feel dizzy may be a warning sign.
I found my cardiologist by recommendations from other biker friends in the Sarasota area.

I went to 166 the other evening and felt OK apart from being breathless.

From what I have read, and I don't remember where, 208 -(0.7 X age) is a more accurate formula for estimating HRmax. Mine, at age 69, is 160. HRmin is 46.

58 yrs old, MHR 192, RHR about 52. I've been told by a doctor that 192 is above average for my age, but it has nothing to do with performance, it's a personal thing.

Hit 185 this a.m. Climbing a 15 % grade of about 200 yards, full max.

52 years old here. I have hit 190 in the last year, but more consistently achieve 187.

I used the 220-age formula when I first started riding and could not keep my HR low enough. Was warned by the nurse at work that exceeding this number would be very dangerous. Got a different story from my doctor.

Historically, my MHR has run about 5 bpm above the rule of thumb: 220 - age. So instead of the 165 this formula predicts, at age 55, mine's more like 170. And just to make life more interesting, my lactate threshold (aka anaerobic threshold) hovers around 90% mhr instead of the 80-85% I've seen bandied about by various experts. None of this means I'm any faster than anybody else. My heart may be able to go faster, but the legs have never been able to: when I'm banging away at 90%, most of the folks I'm riding with are at 75-85%, and the same speed. Oh well.

SP
Bend, OR

Having ridden along with certain of you maniacs in this thread in GWS this summer, I was "inspired" (I guess it would be) to purchase a HR monitor recently. Without getting overly ambitious or obsessive about it and turning myself over to the local exercise physiology lab, I must admit it does provide some really interesting information. At 61, my theoretical/estimated MHR is either 159 or 165 (NYTimes article method).

Surprisingly to me at least, in neutral conditions I can ride in the 120s for a very long time and in the high 130s/low 140s for a good while too. On a long hill last weekend the ole ticker hit 157 and was over 150 for a minute or two for sure... maybe not the greatest fun I've ever had. Recovered quickly when the hellish thing was over.

One good thing I note (from reading this thread, and thanks for that guys) is that my HR drops very quickly when I back off the throttle a little or get a draft or clear a hill.

Conclusion: HR monitor= highly recommended device. I did not answer the poll because I have no idea what my "true" MHR actually is.

Good point. True MHR is information gathered under very controlled conditions. Most of us have "estimated MHR's" The MHR value I use is 4 bpm higher than what I've hit this year on my own self inflicted dip into hell.

As long as my MHR is more than 0, I am happy!!

Well said, Denver!

Interesting data point...Before we started cycling again in May 2006, my wife was running. She entered a 3k running race and went out too fast and so to speak blew herself up. Her max HR from the Garmin was 175 bpm. When she started cycling, the best she could do was 156 bpm. She claimed to be incapable of more than that until her first bike race which had an uphill start and to stay with the field she hit 163 bpm. So what is her max heart rate? 175 or 163? That is a big difference.

MHR is sports dependent. Could that account for the difference?