No, it's not a product of general aerobic fitness. It is a genetically determined individual characteristic.

Exactly. That's why if you're going to use MHR to determine training zones, you have to have an accurate number for your own MHR. This is from the NYT article I linked to in #7 above:

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.

Although the technical term is more like Maximum Achievable Heart Rate in this conversation and context Maximum Heart Rate is accurate. After all, despite all research no one knows precisely what the limiting factor is on any specific individual's heart rate. Plus, from a functional point of view does it matter whether what the limitation is?

Further, it is not necessary, or even useful to know the maximum heart rate cause as long as tissues are perfused and there are no other symptoms. That is why the Breathing Test is such a useful tool.

Using the Polar: 133 is not your estimated HR Max... it 80 percent of your estimated HRmax and defines a theoretical zone for aerobic conditioning (bottom of zone is 100 or something like that). Look for the "own zone" feature of the Polar. That should allow you set our own values if this bothers you.

Going over the 133 level is no big deal... even a very good thing from time to time, provided you are in good health. IMO those who declare the 220-age formula "obsolete" or "discredited" are misinformed and are asking too much of an estimation formula. There is variation around any mean, but the mean does fit a lot of the population.

But MHR to monitor one's own performance, versus comparing to others, is quite useful and highly informative.

The only practical reason to know your MHR is if you want to use it to set training zones, which was the op's original inquiry. I agree, from a heart health point of view, it doesn't tell us anything.

I beg to differ. While, by chance, the "formula" will be accurate for some, it apears to be inaccurate for a majority.

The absolute number for MHR doesn't tell us anything about fitness or performance. It is only useful for comparison purposes when we look at the % of MHR someone can sustain for a given workout,e.g. with my MHR of 200, if I do intervals at 160 (80%), I'm not working as hard as someone with a MHR of 160 who is doing the same workout at 144 (90%).

Just realized I misread this. But again, even monitoring one's own performance, it's % of MHR you can sustain that should be compared. If you have an accurate number for MHR, that won't change.

As you have discovered by responses to your post and, hopefully, by the results of your searches on this forum and others there is quite a variance of opinion on this subject. Also, there is quite a bit of misinformation as heart rate applies to cycling fitness. I say cycling fitness because it is quite clear that fitness for one activity does not necessarily bring with it fitness for another.

What we are after is perfusion of our muscles and tissues with food and oxygen. The heart does that and a monitor of the heart's beating rate is useful. But, other measurements are also useful, some would say more useful. Those are Perceived Exertion and Breathing Effort. Some would say that a heart rate monitor is only useful as it supports the other two because slavish adherance to the meter's readings has a tendency to draw attention from directly being in touch with your own body.

I think it is a mistake to approach this idea of cycling fitness mechanically as some would have you do. Right now our society is going through a risk averse spell with an emphasis on valuing "expert" advice extraordinarily highly. In point of fact, the "experts" have done very little to deserve our faith. Instead we are much better served by paying attention to our own individual health and fitness. I spend a fair amount of time with a group whose job it it to be fit for both cardiovascular and load carrying activity. From them it is clear there is no substitute for lots of sweat and hurt and paying attention to one's own body. By the way there is very little use of heart rate monitors or mechanical training by these professionals or their trainers.

Inaccurate within what limits? Any mean will precisely describe only a few members of a population. But it will be very close to a large number of population members and will differ a lot from fewer population members.

This is not an absolute defense of the 220-age formula, mind you. It may not be the very best estimation tool. But I do think people are asking too much of the formula when they use terms like "bogus" and "discredited". If you find that your HR cannot go as high as the estimate, or goes higher, it is easy enough to adjust the limits on the Polar monitor (where this discussion all began).

Although I have not brought myself to the edge of death to determine what my "true" MaxHR is, FWIW, the 220-age formula is not exactly accurate for me. But it is close enough to my upper limits that it is really not worth the trouble to change the parameters of the HR monitor I use.

You're probably riding in ranges that are actually below your true ranges. If you choose not to go over 170, the max you are capable of achieving (this is what maxhr is) is something larger. If you base your training levels (proper heartrates) on this assumed maximum, your won't be working in your true proper ranges.

Instead of using a false maximum, you can do a Conconi test and see what your actual lactate threashold is. This LT measurement is not precise, but you're using an erroneous value now. It won't

You may want to check out Joe Friel's Total Heart Rate Training book. Joe has a blog too. I've training by heart rate with Jeff Kline at PRS Fitness for few months and it takes a little work to get your training dialed in based on heart rates. However, once I got used to heart rate training, I've enjoyed training and racing more than ever. Setting the watch to beep when I'm out of my heart zone is like having Jeff right there. Since his coaching is mostly online w/ TrainingPeaks.com, the heart rate monitor is completely awesome. Anyways, I hope this helps.

Bret

I based what I wrote on both anecdotal evidence & what I've read. There was a thread here, I think last year, where people were posting their MHRs & ages. 220-age didn't seem to work for many. I've also talked to people over the years and it doesn't seem to work that often.

This is from the NYT article I linked to above:
"If you're trying to improve their aerobic fitness or to train for certain endurance events, then you want to know with a reasonable accuracy what intensity you're exercising at," Dr. Seals said. "If your estimate is 10 or 20 beats too low, then you're pretty far off."

Exercise physiologists say, however, that being pretty far off is more common than most people expect.

"The more information we have, the more we realize that that formula is just a very rough consideration," said Dr. Jack H. Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A&M.

This is from the article in the Journal of Exercise Physiology:
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on this review of research and application of HRmax prediction, the following recommendations can be
made;
1. Currently, there is no acceptable method to estimate HRmax.


Back to me, It just doesn't seem that the "formula" has the degree of accuracy necessary to be of any real utility. If someone doesn't want to determine their MHR or lactate threshold, they are better off using perceived exertion than 220-age. It just doesn't make sense to use a precision instrument like a heart rate monitor and use faulty input. Problem is, most people (including so-called trainers) don't realize this, treat the formula a gospel and blindly use 220-age or the charts in gyms and as a result are not training in their desired zones.

How accurate is accurate? If you take 2 men of the same age and it computes out to 136, with one actually being 134 and the other 138 and they both train as if it's 136 that's probably close enough for most of us here. Unless they are professional athlete level, in which case their coach is going to make sure he has an absolute, and it's worth the hundreds of dollars in medical tests to achieve that.

But even among the sample of people that have posted here, the variation is massively greater than that. My theoretical HR based on my age should be 165. Yet in the past year I've touched 186 and as I didn't have a gun to my head, it's safe to assume I could have pushed it a little higher than that. Training on the basis of my theoretical max would mean that most of the time I'd be in a zone below the one I thought I was in. And I didn't need to spend hundreds of dollars in medical tests, I just needed a freaking big hill.

I used the breathing hard test on today's ride(6-1-10) and found after 7 minutes of hard effort i could recite "The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog" with out any breaks for breath and had no problem repeating. So i continued with the effort and hit 15 minutes, did the recital with no problem, hit 30 minutes and still had no problem, went 45 minutes and still could recite it with no problem. Went 15 miles in 45 minutes, a 20 mph sustained effort. This is best i have done. Would not have done it if not for this simple test. My HR at the end of the ride was 115. I don't have a HR monitor, just a cateye that i got in April. I see that i should continue with my training going uphill and test on the flats. My resting HR is between 46 to 54.

From what I recall reading, the doctors that first used the formula in a presentation. They/he based it on a informal generalization, they did not do a study or write a paper on the subject. So if we look at a large group of people, its' not half bad, but no single person should expect it to apply to them.

I'm in just about the same place. I have been occasionally using the heart rate function on my Garmin for the past couple of months. On a couple of rides where I flogged myself mercilessly on the hills, I hit around 188 briefly. Based on that, I am figuring my zones based on a MHR of 190 (formula says 166). I don't really pay a lot of attention to the thing, but I'll use it on occasion to push myself to work a little harder than my comfort zone if my heart rate is not approaching 90%.

As others have said, the variation is much more than that. This is the result of a poll taken here last year:

View Poll Results: 50+ people .. What is your current Max HRVoters 130. This poll is closed
Max HR above 190 14 10.77% 180-189 34 26.15% 170-179 41 31.54% 160-169 20 15.38% 150-159 9 6.92% 149 or under 12 9.23%

The entire thread can be found here. As can be seen, using 220-age is not "close enough for most of us here." Not by a long shot. And you don't have to be a pro to want reasonably accurate results. As they say, garbage in, garbage out.

Even as an average, its suspect. The original groups tested included heart patients, smokers and people not accustomed to exercise. Its safe to assume they probably stopped before reaching true MHR.

Yeah, what Sally Edwards (via chinarider) sez...

I was worried because my heart rate had to hit 180+ before I felt like I was doing any really hard work. My doctor at the sports medicine clinic (who is also one of the team doctors for the university) said, "Forget the absolute numbers, what matters most is your perceived level of exertion". If it doesn't feel like you're working hard, you aren't, whatever your heart rate is at.

I had a cardiac stress test that put my max heart rate at 198. My VO2 max tested at 49.8, aerobic threshold at 184 bpm. I'm 59 YO.


So if it feels like your not working hard, you aren't, so simple!

A poll based on a small self-selected sample of people responding at this forum does not mean very much, IMO. It's the same issue you included in a quote in one of your posts criticizing the original sample:

"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."

I never claimed that the poll was a scientific sample or that the results had any application to the general public. I cited it in response to the post that claimed 220-age was "close enough for most of us here." Since the poll was of "us here" I thought it was relevant.

I don't take the position that everyone has to test their MHR and use a monitor or that you're not a "real" cyclist if you ride without a computer on your bars. But it just seems oxymoronic to buy and use a heart rate monitor and base your training on numbers that may or may not have any validity for you.

220-age may have some validity as an average for the population at large, but I believe its beyond dispute that it has absolutely no utility as a tool for any particular individual to base their training on. This is from the Journal of Exercise Physiology article:"it is likely that current equations used to estimate HRmax are not accurate
enough for prescribing exercise training heart rate ranges for a large number of individuals." That's all I'm saying.

If you are starting to train and you have nothing else, 220 -age is IMO useful because if you do base training zones on that and follow a training protocol, you are learning to follow a training protocol. If you want to go harder, I would suggest getting a medical test to assess your ticker's health, and give a doc a chance to say "whoa, hold up there!" if it should be said. I just had my second stress test today, and as before, these docs are going to tell me if I have a problem or if cautions or near term re-testing are in order. They are not going to tell my my MAXHR or my LT. They use (220-age)*0.95 to set the max for testing, because that's what the testing protocol tells them to do in order to use standard guidelines to interpret the data. They don't think that is actually 95% of my actual max.

Then go get an athletic expert to test your LT to get the better baseline. You should be able to follow it because of the disciplines already learned. There are several ways to measure the lactate threshold, from which training zones can be calculated. Friel shows you how to do that in the Cyclists' Training Bible. I think, and Friel also stated as much, that there can be risks in looking for the max, and even if a person has minimal risk, it IS a hard thing to do. Lactate threshold testing is much easier on the rider and can still be used to establish reasonable workout guidelines.

I have a problem with this. If they test me with this protocol, they'll only get me to about 77% of my MHR. That may be too low to reveal lurking problems. Conversely, if my MHR was on the low side, they'd be trying to push me to an unattainable figure and might think I have a problem because I can't reach the goal. I just don't see how "standard guidelines" that fail to account for differences in MHR can hold water. Do me a favor. When you discuss the results with your Docs, ask them about this.

I did, and for the same reason. My observed max, 2 years back, is 182 and I was 54 then, so I'm also a rule breaker. Early this spring I felt wasted when I hit 176 on a climb, so MAYBE my max is a little lower this year; when I get a chance I'll do an LT test again.

She said there's loads of history in using this method of cardiac assessment, and to use this test depends on a known method of stressing the patient. They want to get everyone stressed in a known and repeatable way. This is the method in which the test has been established. So my results can only be reasonably assessed if they're made within the methodology. I agree, going up to say 155 for everyone of my age is a different percentage stress, looked at on a chart of actual HRMAX. But to resolve that requires a method of determining every patient's HRMAX. A measurement could be done, but in most cases there's knowledge that the patient comes to the test with potential cardiac risks that are not yet understood. Putting every such patient through a true max test might not be safe. Recall the principle rule in medicine, "First, do no harm." I think they're challenged to make an assessment under stress without doing harm.

Medicine is a pretty soft science in terms of having all the bits of knowledge neatly connected together by comprehensive theory, but they do have good knowledge of how to apply the little bits. I'm an engineer, and I'm always looking for things to connect together systematically. But working closely with docs in dealing with my dad's fatal disease, I learned that they have strong knowledge and follow good logic, but are dealing with a lot more uncertainty than I do in my job. The human animal is a system, but we don't know how everything connects together yet.

If you need more, ask yours. Thanks for listening to all the philosophy, if you've gotten this far. I think your problem is logically valid, but we could just think that because we don't have all the background docs have, i.e. we don't understand their paradigms and the extent of empirical knowledge that exists. In physical sciences we know that the theory is only good until a valid observation is made that contradicts it. I'm ok with not knowing everything, it leaves me time to ride.

My test was just yesterday, I don't have the report-out yet. It WAS a stress, though, I was kinda beat all day!