max heart rate formulas and personal experience
 

I have never worn a heart rate monitor during exercise in my life but I have always wondered what my readings would be. After researching max heart rates online I have found there are many formulas to calculate it but generally they dont take into account an individuals fitness level.

The basic formula seems to be 220 minus your age. I am 38 so that theoretically gives me a max heart rate of 185.

Without going into too many details, have any your personal experiences shown these formulas to be accurate or close to accurate ?

If you are starting from a sedentary stand point they seem in the ball park. But depending on your fitness they are not close enough to bet on. You can often get a stress test from your doctor if you need something closewr than 10 to 15 percent accuracy. Just from my experience.

i dont know about your formula, have a good time with that..
I assume you will get a heartrate monitor that saves data,
for downloading to your home PC to get the numbers..

I'm 64, and don't get ego points off
climbing a steep at a high heart rate, slope,
when I can lower it promptly
by walking my push-bike up that same hill.

freightraininguphill is into somewhat of his Sisyphus project, with that Bike Friday .

Well if you don't plan on "exercising" enough to break a sweat and plan on walking up hills bigger than a driveway more than likely you will never need a HR monitor. People that are casual riders and walkers hardly ever get into anyou might not aerobic zone let alone anaerobic zone so as to push their HR close to MAX. But you might notice a lot of runners and club riders tend to ride with HR monitors. It is simply a way to measure improvements and effort from one year, month or year. I don't think people riding folders, beach cruisers and pedal forward bikes would have much use for a HR monitor. I don't wear one when riding my utility bike and I didn't wear one with my Cafe bike.

The purpose of a HR monitor is for training regardless of what you ride/run/etc. It is of use to determine exertion levels relative to training plans and objectives. Virtually all systematic training plans involve working at specified exertion levels as determined by RPE (Relative Perceived Effort), HRM, or power meters (in reverse order of preference).

Hr
 

Here's an article that may help understand that those formulas are but approximations based on someone's theory so should only be considered a starting point.
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/articles/scni5a10.htm

The 220-age was never meant as a go to formula for max heart rate:

http://cyclingfusion.com/fanatics/he...e-plain-wrong/

Well since my max when I was in High School was 240 I'm not a believer in the formula. \

But back then in swimming we did pulse rate repeats and when your pulse was down to 150 it was time to go again.

I guess I should point out I'd hit the max after 100 yerd all out swims and that included finishing into the wall just as you would in a race, which meanst no breths when it seemed like your lungs would burst. Somehow I think that helps evevate heartrate as the body is trynig to get oxygen to the muscles.

The formulas are general guidelines ... they may be accurate by accident, and they may be close, but chances are they aren't accurate ... and I don't think they are meant to be.

The 220-age says mine should be 166. I routinely exceed that, like in several times a week.

I've estimated mine at 180 and have actually recorded 178. That was as high I want to get.

I'm pushing 60 and highest I get is 182, and that's only after trying really really really hard to get it that high, which takes closely repeated max efforts. I'll hit the mid 170s on occasion during a ride and when doing intervals. Typically average 140-150 on fast rides of 40-50 miles.

Fitness level doesn't have much to do with the max either. It's simply how fast will your heart beat.

If you're interested in finding out, buy an inexpensive HR monitor. Then find a long gradual hill. Warm up and start riding up the hill at a good cadence. Every minute shift to a more difficult gear while trying to maintain the same cadence. Once you can't keep the cadence up, shift again and perhaps once more until it's difficult to remain seated. Then shift one more time, stand up, and sprint all out for 20 seconds. That will be your max or very close to it.

Same, though I think I recorded a 190 once...but it was hardly a clinical environment. If I'm not in the 150-160 range I'm not sweating. According to the charts at the gym, I've died of a burst heart a 1000 times.

Assuming no pathology, there is no "not to exceed" heart rate, so knock yourself out.

You guys are looking at this the wrong way around. The correct formula is: 220 - MaxHR(recorded) = age.

Based on this I am 32 even though born in 1957.

Using the 220 minus age formula, I have the EXACT same HR as Lance.

Seems legit.

:roflmao2:

I've seen over 195, maybe even 200, momentarily even though 220-age would give me 180. I should try doing a proper test sometime.

The maximum heart rate is not at all dependent on fitness level. That's one of the interesting things about it that is somewhat counter intuitive. I recommend finding a good article or book on heart rate training and reding up on it as a starting point.

As for the formula which predicts max HR depending on age - think of it as being as accurate as average shoe size depending on, say, height. Yea, us 5-8 guys might average 8.5 (US) size shoe, but what good does that do you? Many of us will be 8, many 9 and a few at 7 - 7.5 and 9.5 - 10. Guessing does you absolutely no good at all. You have to measure your own foot. You have to measure your own max (somehow - see below).

And by the way, your max will vary depending on the sport: running/walking/hiking vs. XC skiing vs. bicycling vs. swimming, etc.

Measuring accurate max is very difficult and painful. I've used two methods: first, I use a running method described in my heart rate training book. I Worked as hard as I could in doing it, it hurt a lot, and was probably reasonably accurate.

The second way was XC skiing in a race where i just killed myself for the last 5 minutes or so of a ~45 minute race. I looked at the max toward the end when I was seeing stars and on the verge of collapse and used that as my max. for skiing.

Another way to use heart rate is to measure or estimate your Lactate Threshold which can be done with blood value measurements, or by looking at your AVERAGE heart rate for a 45-60 minute race pace event. That method, I think, works very well. Since you can extrapolate various training zones and training plans based on things like "race pace" or LT, that estimate can work very well and might indeed be better than the above estimates of max.

I use that (my race-based estimate on LT) when I try to do "training" for XC ski "racing", but since I never run or bike in serious races, I've never bothered to get a max or LT for those sports. I usually ride at an exertion level depending on my mood and whether I'm trying to keep up with people, and on the rare occassions I run, I use the "talking pace" rule of thumb for fitness walking/running/hiking.

Here's my personal experience:

I'm 44 years old. 220-44=176 max heart rate. Except that someone forgot to tell my heart. I've averaged 178 for an hour and hit 205 many times. I like Camilo's analogy: it's like buying shoes based on correlation to height.

All good stuff above, I'm 64 and have seen 178 on a few sprints when I started way too early! I've also rode at 160 for very long times. I love my HR monitor, eventually you get go know your BPM so well (especially when looked at in conjunction with wattage generated) that it becomes invaluable in self analysis. In spite of my obsession (and many others) with gadgets and personal numbers, there are plenty of folks who enjoy cycling just as much WITHOUT all this 21st century information!

I have not found formulas to be accurate. I had a test done a few years ago to help me set zones, and while it's a few years later now, they still seem applicable. I haven't had max tested for quite a while and see no reason to do so. It's better to set zones based on LT or other metric points anyway.

I have a Polar HRM with a feature called OwnZone. It does not determine the breaks between the zones, but it seems to get the bottom of Z1 and the top of Z4 (out of 5) correct, at least a rough match to my test-based zones. I have gone and will continue to go with it, it's too much hassle to always worry about zone shift.