Maybe this is an impossible question, but I'd like to hear some opinions.

I just bought a heart rate monitor, and used it for todays ride. According to the instruction my max heart rate is 210 - 1/2 age - ( 0.11 x personal weight +4) in my case 210 - 38/2 - (.11 x 188 +4) = 166. So depending on my fitness level I should be working under 166; 70-80% is about 120-125.

My average heart rate for my ride was in the 170s! (the monitor doesnt have average, but i was watching it and it never went below 160 and actually peaked at 183).

My ride is rolling hills for 10.5 miles. I had and average speed of 16.4 mph and rode for 38 minutes. I tried to keep my cadence up and averaged around 85. I was breathing hard, but not dying and could have road another 10 miles at this pace if the sun held up.

Does this make any sense? Do I push to hard? Is the heart rate monitor no good?

Comments please

that formula you used is an estimate (and a very rough one at that ) 166 seems quite low and if you're passing it without seeing white spots or heading towards a bright light then I think it's safe to assume that you need another method to calculate your maximum HR.

Go over to the training section for more knowledgable ways to find your maximum HR.

As far as the HRM being bad, the qestion is, does it give consistent readings? Meaning if you keep a steady pace the HR stays the same, increase pace = higher HRM etc? If so then I'd say t's pretty good (at least for training purposes) as once you establish your MHR for this particular HRM you cal then train in the proper % zones.

I am 52 years old, and there is no way I could ride in the ranges the formula recommends. When I climb up a steep climb my heart rate could go up to 195 at times.. I have a feeling that lawyers were involved in the formulation of those recommendations.

If you hit 183 then for the moment that is your max HR. Try a few hilly rides with some hard intervals. Very quickly you will get an idea of what your max HR is, which is probably much higher than 183. I am 34 and my max HR is 205, according to the formula you used my max HR should be 180. Any formula that estimates maximum HR is only ever a very loose guide.

CHEERS.

Mark

Something seems way off with that formula. Although there is a lot of variance in individual HR and LT . . the average is pretty close to 220-age for men. That would be 182 for you. I'm 38 and 182 is my tested max. It sounds like you got close to your max at 183. 166 is just not in the ballpark.

On the other hand, I'm 26 and most formulas put my max heart rate around 195. The most I've ever seen is 187 and I was seeing spots so I don't think I could have pushed any harder. More recently, I've only been able to get up to 185 no matter how hard I try so I may have drop a few beats as I'm nearing 27 (from what I've read max HR only decreases, you can never increase it). I'll average 168 for 1.5 hour ride though and 175 for a half hour run.

Thanks for the quick responses

jslopez: I tried to keep my perceived work load the same, I was shifting like crazy trying to keep the cadence around 85-90. The max of 183 was at the top of the steapest part of my ride, about 3/4 mile from home. I could have pushed harder and problably gotten my heart rate over 200.

I've checked around at some other sites and they say my max rate should be 180-185.

Still weirdness, since most of my ride would have been above 90% of max.

I think that I would have to spin around 60rpm in a higher gear to keep my heart rate in the 120s (I'll have to go riding with my wife (beginner) and see where I stand).

Keep in mind that you heart rate will lower as you become more fit. I am 43. A year ago I just "busted" as hard as I could on a spin cycle for several minutes and got my HRM to read 193. So I figured it was my max HR. During a 1 hour spin class I was averaging about 165. A year later, and now with a month of road work on my first road bike, the same spin class gives me about 151 average. And I am working just as hard or harder. For me, the high average HR when I first started using a HRM was more a sign of needed to improve my aerobic fitness rather than over exertion.

Steve

Formulas like Karvonens are at best correct for 30% of the population -that means 7 out of 10 people will not be able to use the "age predicted" formulas effectively. Like have you seen those older riders that the formulas say should have a 145 BPM max and they can work all day at 165? Its like saying "Hey fit person follow this chart and become less fit!" Although as we get older your maxium achieveable HR will go down but not exactly on your birthday. MHR is based on one- your age and two your genetics and is special to you. Ever had days where your 160 bpm seemed very easy like you are pedaling without a chain and then the days when it seemed that your heart is coming out your chest at that same number? There are many factors that can make you go nuts if you stick yourself with a number. Things like sleep, nutrician, stress, hydration, how you worked out the day before are all factors to what the heart rate says about your intensity. The real problem is that HR is not a very stable way of telling what your intensity is. There is an area called deflection point where linearly your intensity will not progress with the bpm of your HR there is a point where as you get closer to your max the heart says "push all you want I can not give that much more." ever been there? Ever been in a state where its difficult to breath and you think "OK I'll sprint and just go for it" and you look at that number and go hard and when you have winded yourself and look back down you have only gained a couple of beats? Think about this. If your at a scary movie and all of a sudden a creature goes boo and your HR goes way up but you have no vienous return to be considered any sort of intensity other than a fight or flight response. one more way is to think about cardiac fade. Over time on an moderate endurance ride you lose beats per minute even though you feel the same amount of intensity.
A heart rate monitor is an awesome tool but learning what that number is telling you is the hard part. I suggest checking it and graphing it over time to get an idea of a area of numbers that will tell you when you are in the correct training zone. And as far as being able to say "I have become more fit" that happens when you see HR numbers that you can hold for longer or just feel more comfortable doing.
Velocity

OH yah one more thing that really is wild to think about. Why do we get higher HR numbers when we are running vs. Biking and then again in biking vs. swimming?

What velocity said is absolutely correct.A case in point is, this week I am doing night duty,so pretty much don't get as much sleep as I would have liked.And these few days my heart rate during the ride is where my work load should be at around 70-80% but yet I am only pedalling at around 50-60% effort.If I have to stick to what my HRM tells me for my recovery ride for the week ( I try to do recovery ride during the night duty week so to keep up my fitness and without putting too much strain on my body,but that is another story ),then I would have to soft pedal so softly that I may as well have the day off the bike

So the bottom line is listen to your body and the HRM is only a guide afterall.

In regards to the different heartrate for different sport is due to the working musles are used in different way,and from what I have learned,those sport that used the lower body part such as our feet,the heart has to pump much harder to supply the nesseccary blood flow and that will have a much higher heartrate than sport that using the upper body such as swimming which is using our hands as primary musles.

Another important HR level is your anaerobic threshhold which is about 180 - age. If you exercise above that thresshold you are mainly burning glycerin from your muscles vs. burning mainly fat stores. To increase endurance you generally want to average below your anaerobic threshhold. If you exercise above that for long periods of time you may not see actual improvement in your performance over time. By going at a lower heart rate you will build your aerobic capacity over time. I have a 21mile course that I ride some weekday mornings. About every two weeks I do a "benchmark workout" where I keep my HR at about 135 -145 bpm and usually average 138 - 140bpm. In February (I'm a newbie), at that average HR I would complete that course with an average MPH of about 14.5mph. Last week with the same average HR my average was 15.9mph. So, over time, I can see my cycling fitness improve.

When I go out for rides on the weekends with other riders about 1/2 of the ride is above my anaerobic threshhold and on hills I am often in the 170s.

It has to do with posture: the sensor that is regulating your HR to your effort and the amount of blood needed to pump to supply you with enough oxygen, is located in your neck. So if you are standing up, your sensor is straight above your heart and more effort is needed to push the blood up there. If you're bent over in a cycling position, the sensor is slightly lower relative to your heart; and if you're stretched out swimming it's almost even with your heart.

Go read the 2x20 thread in Training&Nutrition forum.
Its a much better predictor of capacity than any N - age
calculation which takes absolutely about you into account.

https://www.bikeforums.net/training-nutrition/43102-2x20-anaerobic-threshold-test.html

Marty

a couple of observations. even for a 30 minute ride, you have no warm up. @ age 38 this is bad. you should do a warm up. with a warm up then only ~30 minutes of 'hard' cycling, there is no way your avg would be that high.
hydration effects HR
time of day effects HR
obviously, your fitness effects your HR

also, rolling hills means that 1/2 the hill is downhill. you should improve your breathing and know when to actively recover. That HR is too high if measured correctly.

Im 34, Last year I could race at 185 to 189 for over an hour.

Earlier this spring I did a 3.5 mile time trial. I went out too hard, hit 199 in the first 500m

I was 201 to 205 all the way back from the turnaround. I think 205 is my max.

Yeah, it felt like shet.

I have never hear this one before. It is my understanding that the highest rates are seen in XC skiing because more of your muscle mass can be brought in a "working" muscles. Riding has you sitting and you do not have to support your weight etc., running is in between. I have always had max HRs that are 5 BBM or so higher running, although sometimes the gap is bigger. Even though I have been consistently fit for decades, I have seen a fair bit of variability in what seems to be my max HR (aside from the general decline with age). There are numerous ways to calibrate your max and your aerobic threshold, try using Google to find that voluminous literature.

The supporting-your-weight thing is the usual heuristic explanation. The rigorous physiologic explanation has to do with the baroreceptor reflex and the feedback mechanism involving the carotid sinus. I think. I'm not really sure about the whole mechanism, so believe what you wanna.

im 20years old and 145lb....so they say 180...and i know my max HR is 203....

Nice Job Alison! in short it’s how hard your heart has to work to pump blood through your body. The reason you HR goes down at the more intense exertions over time and effective training is due to stroke volume increase which correlates to your lowered resting HR. But again you MHR is what it is cuase its who you are.
Whats the best way to see improvements? Get a stress test or graph your intensities intuitively over time and correlate them with the numbers you are seeing . AND RIDE RIDE RIDE
Velocity

I agree with Velocity. If you really want to know your max heart rate, get a stress test done. I'm 28 and a couple of years ago I had a nuclear stress test performed and my max heart rate was 212. That seems to be fairly high but when I'm out running or riding, I routinely maintain HR above 175. So, at best the formulas given are a starting point.

Wow 212 is freaking me out dude! I haven't seen those kind of HR's since I was 18! What sort of test did they give you? Mine was on the tread mill from hell.
Velocity

The thing of it is, is that I know that at the rate I was working, I could have pushed myself harder.

The time of day could be a factor, as I started riding at about 6:50pm and finished up around 7:30. Hyrdation should not be a factor, as I drink about 1/2 a bottle before I go out and then a bottle while riding. My fitness level, I would judge at beginner (I've got 150 miles under my belt that this point over the course of about 20 rides) . My resting HR is 68.

I'm using a Sigma Sport HR monitor, the chest strap kind. I've got the thing snug around my chest and it seems to keep my HR accruarately when I'm sitting down. (I tested it). I'm wondering if something else is going wrong when I'm actually riding that its not getting a proper reading? Maybe I'll have to try it without my wireless bike computer to see if there is a difference.

Thanks again for all the feedback

I am 53 and started using a HR monitor for the first time in spinning classes winter of 04 then on the road in the spring. I knew I had very high HR's because I was checking them during the spinning classes (they suggest you do it to tailor your effort). I basically worked as hard as the instructor was looking for and almost always found that that put me in the right zone without trying to tailor anything.

Now when I went on the road for the 1st time with the HR monitor I basically freaked out. It was quite cold, I was going at a normal pace type ride into a moderate wind, was putting out an effort I could maintain for 2 hours or more and I was well into the 180's sustained. Sprinting up a small hill put me into the 190's, I am sure that any serious climbing in the steepest parts out of the saddle would put me into the 200's.

I went to my family doc just to make sure things were ok, went to 2 cardiologists, had a regular stress test and a nuclear one, and was told no restrictions. I happen to have a very high max HR and resulting high training zones.

I found ditching the monitor and thus not focussing on HR, but rather training duration and intensity to work much better for me.

I have seen so many people in spinning classes who visibly lowered their level of effort (significantly) once they got a monitor and started looking at the charts for their so called zones.

Unless you really know what you are doing, probably get tested for your vo2 max and max HR, then personally I find using HR monitors for non competitive cycling to be a distraction and a cause of stress.

Others say training with a HR monitor is best if you get tested to find your LT and then train off that.

Personally lots of time on the saddle has been the best way to enjoy and get in great shape. Again not racing or particularly competitive.

Your gonna have everyone burning their chest strap dude LOL. Intuitive training is great for judging just how far you can push yourself without hurting , defeating yourself and pushing so hard that the recovery bits out weight the training work ethic in the current ride. But as far as Checking your gains you need something to tie it in with like a cyclo computer for distance/speed or even a stop watch to see how fast you can do that dreeded hill. I really like the power meters tht are coming out and getting more affordable. add those with RPE and man game is on.
Velocity