Understanding HRmax
 

I am only just getting into cycling (age 58). My motivation is not to become "super fit" - I just don't want to become hopelessly "unfit".

I recently did a "Bruce protocol stress test" and quoting from the report:

"Mr **** managed to exercise for 9 minutes 40 seconds entering stage 4. Pulse rose from 83 bpm to 165 bpm which was 101% maximum predicted target rate."

When the test was stopped I did not feel at all distressed or that my heart was pounding at a high rate - in fact I would have been quite happy to continue.

My question is whether this 165 bpm value is my absolute maximum heart rate and that I should aim to exercise at 70-80% of that (i.e. 115-132) or does the description of the 165 value as a "target" rate mean that it has already been discounted from some theoretical maximum (which I would never deliberately set out to reach)?

I highly doubt that you reached your true max HR. What happened is your muscles became fatigued before you hit maxHR, or that they just stopped the test once you "passed."

Nobody wants to continue once they hit their true max heart rate. It's not a comfortable place to be.

You'll start blacking out when you hit max HR and hold it for a few seconds. Your blood pressure is through the roof when this happens.

I'm 59, and I suspect my max HR is somewhere around 168 to 170. The most I've ever been able to do is 165 for around 20 seconds. Once you get over 95% of max HR, your muscles fill with lactic acid, and you're simply unable to continue. I suspect your max HR is somewhere between 168 to 172, just like mine.

165 is an estimate. As you can see you went over it no problem meaning it is not your actual max heart rate. If you want to find max heart rate you need to do it through "testing" and trial and error. You'll know when you hit your max heart beat or within like 5 beats if you want to throw up and think you will die.

The test was not accurate because it was based on an age based formula. This shows the problem with the formula. It's not only inaccurate but can lead to misinformation from professionals who should know better. This is from a New York Times article on the subject:

'Dr. Lauer pays no attention to the standard formula when he gives treadmill tests. More than 40 percent of patients, he said, can get their heart rates to more than 100 percent of their predicted maximum. "That tells you that that wasn't their maximum heart rate," Dr. Lauer said.

The danger, he said, is that when doctors use that formula to decide when to end a treadmill test, they can inadvertently mislead themselves and their patients. Some patients may be stopping too soon and others may seem to have a heart problem because they never can get to what is supposed to be their maximum rate.

"Some people are being pushed and others are not," Dr. Lauer said. "In my view, that is unacceptable."'

For the whole article go here:http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/he...&ex=1188532800. You'll have to create an account with the NYT, but its free.

Thanks for the replies and in particular to Dan for the Dr Lauer reference.

I am not sure if the fact that my max heart rate is evidently above the age based formula is something I should be happy about or if I should be disappointed that I reached the age based formula (in my case 162) in less than 9 minutes 40 seconds.

I went out and bought a Polar chest strap/wrist watch type monitor.

The first time I tried it out, I went for an easy 40 minute ride and kept my peak rate just under 125 (it fell to around 105 on slight downhills).

On a separate occasion I did a 20 minute program on an elliptical trainer and slowed off a bit in the last couple of minutes to avoid going above 140.

Is it a reasonable plan for me to keep using these same values for 40 and 20 minute workouts and keep a log to see if I can slowly extend the distance covered in the set time? I should point out that I am taking things cautiously as I am on blood pressure medication, but the cardiologist noted that hypertension as being "well controlled".

I find with the monitor that it is not very easy to guess my heart rate from how I feel. Is this normal?

I also tried out the monitor while taking the dog for a walk down the street. I was a little surprised how quickly my heart rate responded to even quite small changes in slope or speed of walking.

This leads to what could well be the dumbest question ever asked on this forum. My dog is aged about 13 and even though she likes going for walks, does tend to lag behind a bit on hills. Could it be that I am putting her heart rate uncomfortably high? Is it possible to get a heart rate monitor for a dog? I did try putting my chest strap around her but not surprisingly the fur prevented it from working.

HR responsiveness to changing workload is a good thing. There is nothing to be concerned or disappointed about just because you were able to reach a high HR over the course of ~10min. In fact, high intensity intervals would call for you reaching close to that number in a much shorter timeframe.

For your workouts I would go more by the sensations from your legs. Take note at what HR you start to feel the burn in your legs. After you have a good feel for what that number usually is, do most of your workouts at about 10bpm less than that. I have a feeling you are much more fit than you think you are.

I wouldn’t worry about your dog as it sounds like he just goes at his own pace.

The fact that your MHR is higher than the age based formula predicts is not something to be happy or unhappy about. It is of no significance whatsoever. It is just an individual variation. The reason to know your true MHR is not because that number has any independant significance, but rather so you have an accurate number to apply the desired training % to (as you get more into training, it is more useful to base training % on lactate threshhold ). That is, if you want to exercise at 60% of MHR you have to know if your MHR is 140, 160, 180 or whatever. A person with a 140 MHR can be fitter & have more athletic potential than a person with a MHR of 180, and vice versa.

I believe it is pretty common for hr to go up pretty fast with activity. My RHR is under 60, but it will go into the 90s just walking around the house. A good indicator of a healthy heart is how fast it goes down. It should really nosedive when you stop the activity

Be careful comparing different activities as HR responds differently. Sally Edwards talks about this in her Heart Rate Training book. I'd suggest getting a copy (or one of the other books on HR training). It would answer a lot of your questions.

Good question about the dog. 13 is getting up there, especially if she's a big dog. I've never heard of a dog dying of a heart attack, tho. In any event, at that age, I wouldn't push her too much.

Dan

your true max rate is a steady climb chasing, and you build the HR till you pass out and fall off the bike. you will pass out before you die. if you have been an athlete for years it is OK to test this way. if kinda new to hard efforts DON'T TRY IT till you been riding a few years

this is your true max rate. at age 20 I was 211 ! now i am 42 and it is 196

my 'cruising' rate is 164-172...LT 179...used to be 172-179, LT at 182
gosh durn it getting old sucks

+1 on the Sally Edwards book and reviewing other books on training. I especially like Friel's Cycling Past 50 and another 50+ friend recommends another one - title is something like "Cycling to 100". Edwards has a number of sub-maximal tests that are good enough to set training zones, especially when you are just getting started.

Better numbers to track for training and to see your progress (or warn of over training) are resting HR and LTHR. You can estimate LTHR as a % of max HR, or better by a time trial or other controlled effort as described by Edwards, Friel, and others. I also like to use my time over a consistent course (I use a 5-mile stretch on a local bike trail with no road crossings during times with light traffic) as one measure of fitness. If you really want to know, coaches and trainers can perform a controlled test where they put you on a trainer calibrated to watts output and monitor your air intake and exhalations to calculate when you transition from aerobic to anaerobic and your VO2max.

Forget about 220-age. I'm 52; the age formula says my max HR is 168. I got back into cycling about 4-5 years ago. I can get into the low 170s on hard hill intervals and have hit 183 on al-out (for me, anyway) sprints without blacking out. And you can't use your HR as a comparison against someone else. While my 50+ friend's has a max HR and LTHR well below mine, I can't keep up with him if he's doing much more than an easy ride.

Wearing the heart rate monitor while carrying out various activities is an interesting exercise.

For example while driving around the suburbs, I was geting readings in the low 60s, scarcely above my resting heart rate. Even something as simple as negotiating a roundabout or intersection would put it up by a few counts for just a few seconds even if there was a negligible amount of traffic.

A more stressful incident (like crossing partially over a continuous centre line to safely pass a cyclist on a narrow street) briefly put it up to about 110 even though I did not feel any sensation of "stress". I wonder what the cyclist's rate was and if it also "peaked".

When riding in traffic (which I do not do), I guess the reading would reflect a combination of "emotional" and "physical" stress.

What he said. +1 more on the Sally Edwards book. Best 20 bucks I ever spent!

Joe,

I agree with others that this test is probably not terribly useful for training purposes.

You can do field tests (there's a sticky thread here) to figure out what your lactate threshold is, and that's what you should use to set your training zones.