Max Heart Rate
09-02-18, 06:21 PM
#51
Senior Member
09-02-18, 06:25 PM
#52
Senior Member
I don't really understand why this is controversial (well, other than that almost anything can become controversial on a web forum). Wanna know your maximum heart rate? Go out and ride hard, really hard, for an hour. Or run hard, quite hard, for a half hour. Voila, you'll have it.
Oh, and if you have any reason to think it might not be smart to do that, see a physician before you do it. And don't do it until you've worked yourself into reasonable shape first.
The "subtract your age from 220" is about 20bpm low for me, so utterly useless for anything.
Oh, and if you have any reason to think it might not be smart to do that, see a physician before you do it. And don't do it until you've worked yourself into reasonable shape first.
The "subtract your age from 220" is about 20bpm low for me, so utterly useless for anything.
09-02-18, 06:32 PM
#53
Senior Member
I’ve done plenty of 40 km TTs and never came within 20 beats of my max. Most of the times I’ve hit it was on accelerating climbs of 3-5 minutes or stepped ramp tests increasing power 10-20 W every minute.
09-02-18, 06:35 PM
#54
Senior Member
09-02-18, 06:53 PM
#55
Senior Member
09-02-18, 06:56 PM
#56
Senior Member
09-03-18, 09:05 AM
#57
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 15,280
Bikes: Nashbar Road
Mentioned: 71 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2934 Post(s)
Liked 341 Times
in
228 Posts
Given that so many cyclists have the wrong idea about their maximum heart rate, getting a number by an unreliable formula or method (as we can see here), and then often utilize the probably incorrect number to define HR zones in a dubious manner (such as percentage of MHR), and yet training from those likely incorrect zones seems to work for people, I still wonder if there is any objectively valid reason to even know your maximum heart rate. Added to the fact that, as mentioned, it makes far more sense to base zones on the lactate threshold, which objectively is only loosely tied to the maximum. To be clear, I'm saying that the zones are based on an incorrect measurement, that the definitions of the zones are incorrect, and that the measurement is of the wrong quantity to begin with.
I'm leaning to the idea that the strongest reason to want a max hr is to plug it in to the various training applications, and that only approximate is completely adequate as far as that goes. Approximate or even outright wrong zones are apparently adequate, which leads me to suspect that HR training falls back to perceived effort, which we associate with particular heart rates over time. All of this pertains to OP only because he said "peak zone (85% max heart rate)". If he already knows what his "peak zone" is, or has an idea, then the "85%" is a red herring. Even more so because "85% max heart rate" is not necessarily what he's looking for as his "peak zone" in the first place! He might have just said 85%, so that we'd know what he was talking about.
I think that he means "hard effort" as opposed to "moderate" or "maximal" effort. My own suggestion, which may or may not work for OP but always has for me, is to group the efforts into roughly 20 minute intervals, where I push the pace as much as I can manage for that interval of time. Some stretch of road that has few stops, and isn't particularly hilly (because I don't have the discipline to resist charging up and down the hill). My own practice - which I don't believe strongly enough to advise but is logical and works - is to observe the heart rate during those efforts and then assign that number to the peak aerobic zone, regardless of what I believe my max HR to be.
I'm leaning to the idea that the strongest reason to want a max hr is to plug it in to the various training applications, and that only approximate is completely adequate as far as that goes. Approximate or even outright wrong zones are apparently adequate, which leads me to suspect that HR training falls back to perceived effort, which we associate with particular heart rates over time. All of this pertains to OP only because he said "peak zone (85% max heart rate)". If he already knows what his "peak zone" is, or has an idea, then the "85%" is a red herring. Even more so because "85% max heart rate" is not necessarily what he's looking for as his "peak zone" in the first place! He might have just said 85%, so that we'd know what he was talking about.
I think that he means "hard effort" as opposed to "moderate" or "maximal" effort. My own suggestion, which may or may not work for OP but always has for me, is to group the efforts into roughly 20 minute intervals, where I push the pace as much as I can manage for that interval of time. Some stretch of road that has few stops, and isn't particularly hilly (because I don't have the discipline to resist charging up and down the hill). My own practice - which I don't believe strongly enough to advise but is logical and works - is to observe the heart rate during those efforts and then assign that number to the peak aerobic zone, regardless of what I believe my max HR to be.
Last edited by wphamilton; 09-03-18 at 09:10 AM.
09-03-18, 12:43 PM
#58
glorified 5954
I don't really understand why this is controversial (well, other than that almost anything can become controversial on a web forum). Wanna know your maximum heart rate? Go out and ride hard, really hard, for an hour. Or run hard, quite hard, for a half hour. Voila, you'll have it.
Oh, and if you have any reason to think it might not be smart to do that, see a physician before you do it. And don't do it until you've worked yourself into reasonable shape first.
The "subtract your age from 220" is about 20bpm low for me, so utterly useless for anything.
Oh, and if you have any reason to think it might not be smart to do that, see a physician before you do it. And don't do it until you've worked yourself into reasonable shape first.
The "subtract your age from 220" is about 20bpm low for me, so utterly useless for anything.
it makes far more sense to base zones on the lactate threshold, which objectively is only loosely tied to the maximum.
My own suggestion, which may or may not work for OP but always has for me, is to group the efforts into roughly 20 minute intervals, where I push the pace as much as I can manage for that interval of time. Some stretch of road that has few stops, and isn't particularly hilly (because I don't have the discipline to resist charging up and down the hill). My own practice - which I don't believe strongly enough to advise but is logical and works - is to observe the heart rate during those efforts and then assign that number to the peak aerobic zone, regardless of what I believe my max HR to be.
My own suggestion, which may or may not work for OP but always has for me, is to group the efforts into roughly 20 minute intervals, where I push the pace as much as I can manage for that interval of time. Some stretch of road that has few stops, and isn't particularly hilly (because I don't have the discipline to resist charging up and down the hill). My own practice - which I don't believe strongly enough to advise but is logical and works - is to observe the heart rate during those efforts and then assign that number to the peak aerobic zone, regardless of what I believe my max HR to be.
09-03-18, 03:15 PM
#59
Full Member
Thread Starter
Took a ride on a bike path today. Looks like I rode for 49 minutes, with a max heart rate of 168 bpm and a average of 130. It says I had 1 minute peak exercise, 28 minutes Cardio and 14 minutes fat burning. Looks like the round trip was 12 miles and I averaged 14.5 mph. I would stand and mash then sit and spin. Looks like I will have to try something else next time.
09-04-18, 01:33 PM
#60
glorified 5954
I always see higher heart-rates when running. My cycling max to date is about 168 with a running max of 174. Running is also a whole lot easier to find your max. No stop-and-go.
09-04-18, 05:12 PM
#61
Full Member
Thread Starter
I curious that your max hart rate is the same as mine. If you don't mind me asking, how old are you and what are you measuring with? (Only if you don't mind) I'm 51 and using a imitation fit bit.
09-05-18, 12:37 PM
#62
glorified 5954
38 and measured the two max values with a garmin bluetooth chest strap. For day to day use, I stick with the 735xt wrist HR measurements. From what I see other's measuring, I have a low max HR for my age. Everyone is quite different. That's why the 220-age calculation is only good for semi-accurate estimations.
09-05-18, 04:30 PM
#63
Full Member
Thread Starter
38 and measured the two max values with a garmin bluetooth chest strap. For day to day use, I stick with the 735xt wrist HR measurements. From what I see other's measuring, I have a low max HR for my age. Everyone is quite different. That's why the 220-age calculation is only good for semi-accurate estimations.
09-05-18, 04:37 PM
#64
Senior Member
The way I see it is when running, your whole body has some work to do to keep you stabilized. When cycling, only some muscles on your legs do most of the work therefore it's harder to attain max heart rate without first tiring those muscles.
09-07-18, 02:22 PM
#65
Senior Member
Not really. All-out is all-out. Untrained individuals may run out of leg muscles before maxxing out their HR, so in that respect MHR can be raised through training. But if you haven't achieved that state where there's not enough oxygen in the air and you're on the verge of blacking out, you haven't reached your MHR. I think a lot of people reach their lactate threshhold and think that's their MHR.
09-07-18, 02:48 PM
#66
Passista
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 7,597
Bikes: 1998 Pinarello Asolo, 1992 KHS Montaña pro, 1980 Raleigh DL-1, IGH Hybrid, IGH Utility
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 866 Post(s)
Liked 721 Times
in
396 Posts
MHR is a very personal thing. That's why the 220-age formula is so coarse, 2 individuals of the same age may have MHR 30 beats apart or more.
09-07-18, 07:38 PM
#68
Full Member
Thread Starter
03-08-19, 12:44 AM
#70
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 13
Bikes: GT Grade (Sora), Kestrel Talon X (105), vintage Univega Competizione "Frankenbike" w/ Record, Mavic, and 105 components
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
For fitness and recreation, perceived exertion and tracking day to day with a fitbit or something is plenty.
If we're talking actual bike training, we're not in the ballpark yet.
It's age and genetically dependent. If you're deemed in fair enough health by a physician, then you acquire the max by doing something like a 2 minute hill sprint interval. All out, die at the top or before the top.
My max is in the low 190s and I'll hold 170's and finish the last 6min or so of a 20 min power test in the low 180s.
85% is steady state power output level, ie...cruising solo for a couple hours in mild discomfort (160bpm = 85% of 190).
I think sometimes early on in riding bikes, max HR and a HR you can comfortably hold is very trainable. Like in the first few months. After that, not so much. After that it's your tolerance for lactate and how quickly you can clear it. You won't be able to increase your max HR and your HR zones after a fair amount of training, just the physiology itself.
If we're talking actual bike training, we're not in the ballpark yet.
It's age and genetically dependent. If you're deemed in fair enough health by a physician, then you acquire the max by doing something like a 2 minute hill sprint interval. All out, die at the top or before the top.
My max is in the low 190s and I'll hold 170's and finish the last 6min or so of a 20 min power test in the low 180s.
85% is steady state power output level, ie...cruising solo for a couple hours in mild discomfort (160bpm = 85% of 190).
I think sometimes early on in riding bikes, max HR and a HR you can comfortably hold is very trainable. Like in the first few months. After that, not so much. After that it's your tolerance for lactate and how quickly you can clear it. You won't be able to increase your max HR and your HR zones after a fair amount of training, just the physiology itself.
I've been wondering for a while now...what does it mean when threshold and max are so close together? I don't know enough to understand if this is a good thing or not. Most people I've spoken to have LTs that are around 20bpm below max.
03-08-19, 05:04 AM
#71
Junior Member
I'm 67.....ugh....and just took a run at my max heart rate last week. I'd been on the road for ~35 miles on a route that finished up with a gentle climb for the last two miles. At that point, I mashed a gearing combination that pushed me to my limits. My heart rate basically "stalled" at 153. I've done similar "tests" over the past few years and the results have been consistent.
Dean
Dean
03-08-19, 05:25 AM
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NE Tennessee
Posts: 917
Bikes: Giant TCR/Surly Karate Monkey/Foundry FireTower/Curtlo Tandem
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked 84 Times
in
62 Posts
I am 55 and until last year, pushed myself very hard during winter training. I.noticed I’d have these occasional “spells” where my heart would race during the day, for no reason, but didn’t connect the dots. On a forum such as this one (and maybe it was this one), someone mentioned articles suggesting there comes an age where max heart rate work is problematic (lots of dissent on that claim too). I cut back and now rarely go above 90% but everything else the same: frequency of training, duration at 85%-90% etc. Immediately, no more strange spells.I am not sure I’d accept prevailing wisdom about maxing heart rate.
All that said, even though I have had an angiogram which came back clean, I still try to avoid maxing out too often and am always aware of the occasional bump in the chest. Typically it is in the high 160s or low 170s. Very close to the 220 - age formula that is so disdained by many. I can still put out a 22 mile ride with 1500' of climbing with an 18.5+ mph average.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Arboleda
Training & Nutrition
3
04-11-12 03:23 PM
