Running uses a many more muscles than riding. Perhaps that is why my coach had me get out of the saddle at the end of the test interval when I could not keep going seated. Because your wife hit 163 in a bike race that doesn't mean that was her MHR, it was her max HR for that race. I think if I hit a HR within 5 beats of my MHR in a race for longer than 15 seconds the field would get away. .

That is exactly the point. Her max measured HR so far is 175. She may not be able to get there via the bicycle YET, but it is the ability of her heart to beat. Therefore, if she were using HR training zones based on max HR, should she use 175 for her max or even a high number? I do not know and I suspect others do not know either.

This is one of the reasons for using LTHR as an anchor point instead of MHR. It's hard to achieve your max, and it's hard to say you couldn't have gone just that little bit higher. Max means, you can't go higher.

Some of the things that will have a daily and changing influence an individual's MHR: conditioning, hydration, bacterial and/or viral infection, fatigue, type of exercise or physical stress, mental state, drugs used, ...

Actually, the only things that counts is whether the MHR is adequate to get the job done. If not, scale back the job, or divide it so MHR is adequate.

This is a meaningless number to anyone taking blood pressure medications. I do and I max out at 115bpm.

Here is a 2002 article from Slowtwitch about running and cycling heart rates.

https://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadin...clingrate.html

Interesting article Hermes. It explains why I have some of the issues I do on the bike. I've always thought my limiter was a lack of muscle strength, though everyone tells me cycling is all aerobic. My body just doesn't seem to want to build muscle though. While my cardiovascular system can always be improved, it is better than my strength. I'll try the gym again though I always seem to get hurt. Unfortunately I am not allowed to do squats or deadlifts due to my lower back issues.

I suggest the following versus the gym considering your back. But you still have to be careful. At the track, we do 100 meter jumps. This is Zone 7 ATP-CP neuromuscular training. After a very good warmup and while you are fresh, from 10 mph, 80 gear inches, seated, go as hard as you can for 10 seconds and then shut down. Roll along for about 3 to 4 minutes then do it again. After two seated efforts, do two standing efforts. Now you should get going pretty fast in 10 seconds and the cadence will be high. We hit 30 mph and 130 rpm at the track. These will definitely blow up your legs and give you more leg strength. Caution...these may be tough on your back so work up to a max effort.

When I started doing these, I was terrible. It takes a long time to get up to 30 mph in 10 seconds so be patient and know in advance that these may sound easy but they really take their toll, 4 jumps is a lot and may make you very sore at first.

The other technique is standing starts in 90 gear inches and hit it very hard for 10 pedal revolutions. This is the closest thing to weight lifting on the bike and will definitely blow up your legs but these are very tough on your back and knees so once again go easier at first. You just slow roll up to almost a track stand and then when your favorite foot is in perfect position you throw your weight forward, stand the kill it. Good luck.

Z7 intervals should be shut down within 10 seconds. More time is not better. You begin to go anaerobic and will not get as much benefit out of later jumps or starts.

One other thought on these...if you use a road bike, the dropouts are not horizontal so you may pull the rear wheel out doing starts in 90 gear inches. Track bikes have horizontal dropouts and bolted on rear wheels. And track guys still pull the rear wheel out. You have a fixed gear so that may work better.

Thanks Hermes, I have done those workouts before but not in the last year. I'll get back to them for sure. I forgot about the neuromuscular Z7 work. I'm sure it will take a long while before I get to 30 mph in just 10 sec. When I last did 30s work, I went from basically a rolling trackstand to 30mph in 22 sec on a very slight upgrade (maybe .5%). I have been meaning to get back on the track bike. Those high pressure jumps usually do not hurt my back. It's more the compression of heavy weights on the shoulders at the squat rack or in the laying down in the leg press sled that does it.

65. Max heart rate is 172

Who knows? I just turned 60. The highest HR my monitor has recorded is 155. My best guess is my Max HR is right around 160, but I don't have a clue and don't much care. Geting to 155 after open heart surgery, valve replacement and aneurisem repair is quite adequate.

Wanted to issue a BIG thank you to all who have participated so far and to encourage the rest of you 50+ people to vote (just like all non-Chicago elections don't vote twice please ) .. as mentioned will summarize the results of this highly non-scientific poll toward the end of October. Lots of interesting comments so far; keep 'em coming.

THANKS and Cheers
Zdrifter

Looks like polling is slowing down so here's some results. Will recalculate when the poll closes, but we have over 100 votes so ....

Taking these results we see the following:

Number: 111 (votes)
Mean: 174
Standard Deviation: 15

So on average of those that 'voted' we get an average Max HR of 174 with 2/3's of the people 'voting' falling between 159 and 189. (this calculation is not 'precise' but OOM)

If one used the good ole 220-age formula we would have expected the following:



Yet we see something higher than that. Assume an average on the 50+ forum of 57, yes, it's very arbitrary but this little 'study' is by no means rigorous or 'scientific'. Using that assumption we get a MaxHR of 163 with the formula.

So, why did I do this. Didn't want to say much in the beginning in order to avoid influencing the results (again not that this is a real scientific study, just an informal 'theory of mine' investigation).

I have this theory that people that are active are in the minority and that 'formulas' that are developed for the general population don't apply to the 'active' group. Seems obvious right? But I just wanted a little data to confirm it. Thus a poll. What we got confirms a general statement ... the average MaxHR of bike enthusiasts is higher than the general population. How much? Well that remains a purely individual thing, your MaxHR is yours. What I wanted was an 'average'. And of course the 'why' bike enthusiasts seem to have higher MaxHRs, this is a 'chicken or egg' type question.

(disclaimer) PLEASE, please don't extrapolate this poll to yourself. It does not apply. Do not assume your MaxHR is anything other than what tests by a competent authority tells you it is.As with all things in life YMMV.

Cheers
Zdrifter

+1, I use the 220-age and I know when I am approaching the max according to this formula. Max for me is 160 but I can 'feel' it at 153 or 154. While I have hit the max on occasion, I don't feel good and can't sustain it for long. Agreee with you that on distances you don't want to be near max or you won't go far.
For me, in the 130's and 140's depending on the hills and speed, is about where I end up for most of the ride.

I don't think your theory (hypothesis) is correct. MHR is recognized as a physical limitation that you can't really do anything to change up or down, and it certainly does decrease with age. Most of the genpop probably has no idea what their MHR is anyway, and even fewer of them ever come close to seeing it.

The 220-age thing has always been conservative, no one ever took it seriously as anything other than a crude benchmark. I think the only thing you MIGHT consider from the data is that high MHR people tend to go into sports like cycling, or keep cycling until they're older than other people, but I doubt that's true. Possibly at a super-elite level having a high MHR is an advantage but I'd have to see more than anecdotal data for that one too.

For my data point, I'm 50 and see >190 bpm pretty often--- and I don't think it helps... I'd much rather have bigger lungs or arteries or pain threshold.

57 and max HR I can hit is 155.

That only happened once that I am aware of. I don't know how you guys get up into the ranges shown here. I'd pass out long before I got there for sure. On the hills I ride regularly I max out at about 150 and have to cut back at that point. Nothing wrong with my heart just am pooped at that point.

I'll keep working on the engine but I have no worry about ever hitting the ranges of you heavy hitters out there.

Is adding 4 points to your observed max something to get your estimated max? I hadn't heard that before but figured it's really difficult to reach the absolute max.

I've read that before too; in an article by a trainer who did max heartrate testing - he had a routine to put the rider through that brought them to the verge of exploding, and then added 2bpm because "they all hold back on me just a little bit" HA! The point though is that he was targeting a number that the cyclist would then use as his MHR when he later calculated 0.7MHR etc.

+1 IMHO, max heart rate and the formula formula are not very relevant. In fact, very unfit people may more easily achieve a max heart rate than more fit people. Max heart rate varies from sport to sport so running is different from cycling. There are so many factors that affect performance at the cellular level that IMO, it is best for masters to focus on training zones based on threshold and focus on more intensity if they want to improve the engine. Intensity affects so many things some understood and some not. However, I applaud the theory, research and poll to achieve a better understanding.

I have to disagree with this conclusion. From everything I've read, MHR is simply an individual characteristic, like height or hair color, and has nothing to do with fitness or athletic ability. I think the "formula" is off for the general population as well as for the "active" population. I think studies underestimate MHR because it is hard to reach and takes a lot of exertion. Active people are more likely to put forth the effort to reach max and thus report higher MHRs, but that doesn't mean they really have higher MHRs. This is from the link I earlier cited regarding the problems with the "formula":

"Dr. Haskell culled data from about 10 published studies in which people of different ages had been tested to find their maximum heart rates.

The subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart disease. . . .

But, exercise physiologists said, these data, like virtually all exercise data, had limitations. They relied on volunteers who most likely were not representative of the general population. "It's whoever came in the door," Dr. Kirkendall said.

In addition, he and others said, gauging maximum heart rates for people who are not used to exercising is often difficult because many prematurely stop the test.

As the treadmill hills get steeper, people who are not used to exercise will notice that their calves are aching. "They will say they can't go any further," Dr. Kirkendall said."

If 220-age works for you, it's simply by coincidence. At best, the "formula" represents an average (there are doubts regarding it's accuracy as an average, but that's a different issue). You may fall in the mid-point of the bell curve, but that doesn't mean the formula has any general predictive utility. It's like saying the average male is 5'10', you're a male, so you must be 5'10'. The fact that some males are in fact 5'10' does not validate the hypothesis.

As I said in other posts MHR (and by extension HR for different training zones) doesn't have anything to do with fitness or ability. I'm also 57 and my MHR is about 200, but that doesn't make me any fitter than you. I simply means our hearts operate somewhat differently. You heart probably produces a higher stroke volume than mine.

Thanks to all who mentioned out the MaxHR is not a 'changeable' figure. It does decrease as one ages, but it is sort of 'set' by genetics. I didn't mention it but should have.

That being said, it seems people with higher than 'average' MaxHRs and higher than predicted by the 220-age formula (assuming it applies to the general population, which is a leap), gravitate to bicycling and possibly other sports where having a higher than average MaxHR is an advantage. Thus my 'investigation' on this forum. While I used the word 'theory', it was in the very loosest sense of the word. Also that's the reason for the 'chicken or egg' statement ... do 'active' people have higher than average MaxHRs (chicken) or does having a higher than average MaxHR bias one toward choosing activities that can benefit from this trait (egg). Again as many have pointed out it is a trait, not something you can change much.

And yes, averages are just that .... they represent no one, but do give us insight into groups.

Would certainly never hold this 'study' out to represent anything ... really was just a fun thing for me and at least I hope mildly interesting to some here.

Cheers
Zdrifter

Again, I have to disagree. I don't know of anything to support the proposition that having a higher than average MHR is an advantage for cycling or any other sport. Another quote from the NYT article:

"Dr. Fritz Hagerman, an exercise physiologist at Ohio University, said he had learned from more than three decades of studying world class rowers that the whole idea of a formula to predict an individual's maximum heart rate was ludicrous. Even sillier, he said, is the common notion that the heart rate is an indication of fitness.

Some people get blood to their muscles by pushing out large amounts every time their hearts contract, he said. Others accomplish the same thing by contracting their hearts at fast rates. As a result, Dr. Hagerman said, he has seen Olympic rowers in their 20's with maximum heart rates of 220. And he has seen others on the same team and with the same ability, but who get blood to their tissues by pumping hard, with maximum rates of just 160.

"The heart rate is probably the least important variable in comparing athletes," Dr. Hagerman said."



Anyway, thanks for starting the thread, it was interesting.