# So whats your maximum heart rate?



## fenlandpsychocyclist (3 Jan 2012)

I've been using a garmin forerunner 305 for two years now and have checked my "resting heart rate" and "thrashing up a hill on a mountain bike" heart rate. (I'm 41, 5'6" and 190 pounds).

Minimum: 48 bpm
Maximum: 190bpm

I usually ride around 150bpm-165bpm range.


Just a quick question really ... as (hopefully) my health improves, would the numbers
change much?


----------



## screenman (3 Jan 2012)

Mine was tested at 192 in 1996.


----------



## amaferanga (3 Jan 2012)

Why do you want to know? It doesn't mean anything really. It's certainly not something you should be willy waving about if that's what you're doing.


----------



## HLaB (3 Jan 2012)

I'm 36 fwiw and my Garmin usually maxes out in the high 190s, I use 199bpm (I was regularly just below that last year and hit it once), a few time I've hit substantially higher up to 240bpm but I suspect interference. My average resting HR is 66bpm but I don't know how accurate that is (I think I laid on the bed for 1/2 an hour so I doubt thats accurate at all ). Going by the 220-age I have to be 21! Reading up I've a higher HR than all the formulas!


----------



## Zoiders (3 Jan 2012)

Never ask the heart rate question as people are influenced by what they read about the pros.

In short people fib, it's like asking about average or "crusing" speeds on the bike.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (3 Jan 2012)

Oops ... dunno what happened but my original post had a line missing and the question i wanted to ask wasn't there.

Please re-read.


----------



## Blue (3 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> I've been using a garmin forerunner 305 for two years now and have checked my "resting heart rate" and "thrashing up a hill on a mountain bike" heart rate. (I'm 41, 5'6" and 190 pounds).
> Minimum: 48 bpm
> Maximum: 190bpm
> I usually ride around 150bpm-165bpm range.
> ...


 
No, however, if you do a little research and discover the value of the figures you may be able to calculate your HR training zones and then alter your training in such a way that a lot of hard work may enable you to shift the thresholds that exist between the two figures - a little!


----------



## Nebulous (3 Jan 2012)

I lost a lot of weight and increased my fitness quite a bit last year. My resting heart rate dropped a lot, certainly more than 10 beats per minute, but if my maximum changed I didn't manage to detect it!


----------



## Eoin Rua (3 Jan 2012)

The fitter you become the lower your resting HR will be...with maximum HR it depends, the 220 minus age refers to maximum sustainable rate, but it can go beyond that - at the end of rowing races my HR would commonly be around 230, while a friend of mine struggled to get his HR above 180, he was a rower and ultra-marathon runner


----------



## screenman (4 Jan 2012)

The 220 minus age is rubbish and has nothing to do with sustainable rate, that is down to fitness. It is unlikely that your maximum will do anything but decrease as you age, however with the right level of exercise and rest your resting heart rate could lower. Judging by your 48 you are already not unfit, I would say average for UK adult would be more likely 70+

The figures often seen between 220 and 240 on some HRM is caused by outside influences, electric pylons etc.


----------



## Red Light (4 Jan 2012)

screenman said:


> The 220 minus age is rubbish and has nothing to do with sustainable rate, that is down to fitness.


 
Awww.....trust you to go and spoil it. I was enjoying the fact that my MHR said I was still 21 after all these years according to the formula.


----------



## Becs (4 Jan 2012)

Your maximum heart rate is essentially set genetically but training will alter how much exercise you can do before you hit maximum (unfit and obese may hit it with a fast walk, fit person may need to sprint etc). Also the recovery of your heart rate from max will be shorter as you get fitter. Resting heart rate will change with fitness, but at 48 yours is already good so I wouldn't expect much of a change in rate with further training but perhaps a lowering of blood pressure though.


----------



## TheSandwichMonster (4 Jan 2012)

Zoiders said:


> Never ask the heart rate question as people are influenced by what they read about the pros.
> 
> In short people fib, it's like asking about average or "crusing" speeds on the bike.


 
One of my reasons behind getting a turbo trainer, other than the obvious ability to ride inside, was to be able to perform controlled fitness/HR tests. After getting it last week, one of the first things that I did the following day (after properly warming up) was to do me a max HR ramp test.

And you know what, I was gutted! I expected to be up into the 190's easily, and I actually cr*pped out at 186. My resting is around 60bpm, but I expected to be able to get higher than that, but I also reckon I probably didn't go hard enough on the test right at the end. I'll try again in a week or so to see if I can bully myself a little bit harder!


----------



## steve52 (4 Jan 2012)

eek slow down guys you only have so many beats and then its game over  for those with no sence of irony this is not quite true


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2012)

What is the point in chasing a higher max HR?


----------



## amaferanga (4 Jan 2012)

GregCollins said:


> What is the point in chasing a higher max HR?


 
For willy waving? 

Thing is though, if someone has a very high max HR and they're not a talented athlete then that probably means they've got a teeny little heart


----------



## ushills (4 Jan 2012)

From my understanding of the polar website and other sources, your maxHR is your maxHR and not much can be done about it, you can improve your resting HR with exercise, however, the main guide to fitness is how quickly your HR gets back to your resting HR following exercise. 

Have a look at karvonen method for calculating the appropriate thresholds for exercising, it is important to exercise appropriately for long term benefit and spending significant time at maxHR unless a super fit athlete will only cause damage, injury and fatigue.


----------



## ushills (4 Jan 2012)

Also as you get fitter you will use less of your HR capacity for the same work, i.e, your heart gets more efficient. MaxHR and resting HR will change little.


----------



## fossyant (4 Jan 2012)

Max Heat Rate is individual. If you train with a HR/Garmin then you'll find out. It's useful for gauging fitness and health but for you alone.

Mine is about 190/192 these days. That said, when I was on my nerve meds it messed about with my HR, and on some climbs where I was riding comfortably and I'd be ticking along at about 175, on the meds I was hitting 190 without trying - this told me they were no good. Since stopping it's settled.

If you know where your HR is usually whilst riding, and you find it's either too high or too low, this can be an indication that you are unwell.

In my 20's my HR would do about 205 max.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jan 2012)

TheSandwichMonster said:


> One of my reasons behind getting a turbo trainer, other than the obvious ability to ride inside, was to be able to perform controlled fitness/HR tests. After getting it last week, one of the first things that I did the following day (after properly warming up) was to do me a max HR ramp test.
> 
> And you know what, I was gutted! *I expected to be up into the 190's easily, and I actually cr*pped out at 186*. My resting is around 60bpm, but I expected to be able to get higher than that, but I also reckon I probably didn't go hard enough on the test right at the end. I'll try again in a week or so to see if I can bully myself a little bit harder!


 
You want to repeat a ramp test! You're a braver man than me Gungha-din. I suppose if you were competing then fair enough but otherwise why. What makes you think 186 is not your max? I know mine is 191 from a self-test I've done and I've never got near to it again in the course of normal riding, closest is 186 and that was running, not riding. I would take 186 and set your zones on that. Higher or lower is not better, it's just you. If you think you had more, just add a few beats, there's nowt to be gained from doing it again, well not for a mere casual mortal like me there isn't.


----------



## GrasB (4 Jan 2012)

GregCollins said:


> What is the point in chasing a higher max HR?


not a clue, if you have a high HRmax then so be it, however it doesn't actually mean anything... Now if we talk about watts produced at HRmax...


----------



## Norry1 (4 Jan 2012)

Age 51
MHR 171


----------



## TheSandwichMonster (4 Jan 2012)

Crackle said:


> You want to repeat a ramp test! You're a braver man than me Gungha-din. I suppose if you were competing then fair enough but otherwise why. What makes you think 186 is not your max? I know mine is 191 from a self-test I've done and I've never got near to it again in the course of normal riding, closest is 186 and that was running, not riding. I would take 186 and set your zones on that. Higher or lower is not better, it's just you. If you think you had more, just add a few beats, there's nowt to be gained from doing it again, well not for a mere casual mortal like me there isn't.


 
Well, I want to compete, so that's one reason I suppose. The other is that I just think I probably could have done a little bit more: It's all very well to attempt these things and *think* you've given it your all, but the reality of it is more likely that there's a little bit of effort left in there, but your mind is telling you to stop, so you do. In all fairness, I think that would be true of most people - but I've now found a place locally that does proper cycling fit tests , so I've made an appointment to go in there in a few weeks time to have one done properly - A 3rd party will always push me harder than I can push myself.


----------



## fenlandpsychocyclist (4 Jan 2012)

Thanks for the informative replies.
So the basics are that heart rates are individual and can only be used to track improvements
of the individual over time ... such as heart rate decreasing as the heart gets more efficient.

I may pay more attention to my heart rate in future, and start looking at "training zones" and
"interval training".

As for willy waving ... mine got gangrene and fell off years ago due to having my seat front
too high.


----------



## Blue (4 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> Thanks for the informative replies.
> So the basics are that heart rates are individual and can only be used to track improvements
> of the individual over time ... such as heart rate decreasing as the heart gets more efficient.
> 
> ...


 
Now you're talking my language, however, it's only useful if you want to compete. Why don't you have a go at a TT in 2012 - that's when the numbers game will start to be fun.


----------



## Blue (4 Jan 2012)

GrasB said:


> not a clue, if you have a high HRmax then so be it, however it doesn't actually mean anything... *Now if we talk about watts produced at HRmax*...


 
Let's face it, that's where it's at, isn't it. HR is such a blunt instrument and subject to 'drift' etc when in the heat of competition.

I would just love to be able to afford a powermeter - wherein lies the problem for many.


----------



## Blue (4 Jan 2012)

GregCollins said:


> What is the point in chasing a higher max HR?


 
There isn't any point in this. However, it's inportant to get the number so that training zones can be set with a view to altering the various 'thresholds' which determine ability to hold/produce particular efforts in competittion.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2012)

Blue said:


> There isn't any point in this. *However, it's inportant to get the number so that training zones can be set with a view to altering the various 'thresholds' which determine ability to hold/produce particular efforts in competittion.*


This I knew.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jan 2012)

TheSandwichMonster said:


> Well, I want to compete, so that's one reason I suppose. The other is that I just think I probably could have done a little bit more: It's all very well to attempt these things and *think* you've given it your all, but the reality of it is more likely that there's a little bit of effort left in there, but your mind is telling you to stop, so you do. In all fairness, I think that would be true of most people - but I've now found a place locally that does proper cycling fit tests , so I've made an appointment to go in there in a few weeks time to have one done properly - A 3rd party will always push me harder than I can push myself.


 
All fairy nuff then, I didn't realize you wanted to compete. I wish you a happy, I'm going to be sick/pass out, ramp test then


----------



## TheSandwichMonster (4 Jan 2012)

Nearly all of my cycling ends up with me feeling like that at the moment!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2012)

Crackle said:


> All fairy nuff then, I didn't realize you wanted to compete. I wish you a happy, I'm going to be sick/pass out, ramp test then


One of my club members tried a max HR test on a local hill. She passed out and narrowly avoided getting run over by another cyclist! Doing it as a runner last year had me upchucking. Interestingly the max numbers are different across the two disciplines!


----------



## JamesMorgan (4 Jan 2012)

There is quite a large variation in maximum heart rate across the general population. The standard deviation is around 12 bpm (ie 95% of the population will fall in a band +/- 25 bpm from the mean). So at age 40 the mean is around 180, but anything between 155-205 is normal. As others have stated there is no correlation between fitness and max HR - it is just something you are born with. As you get fitter it gets more difficult to achieve max HR, so it make sense to test it before you get too fit.


----------



## Crackle (4 Jan 2012)

GregCollins said:


> One of my club members tried a max HR test on a local hill. She passed out and narrowly avoided getting run over by another cyclist! Doing it as a runner last year had me upchucking. Interestingly the max numbers are different across the two disciplines!


 
I've read they're different but only had the courage to do one test on a bike, not running. I simply add a few beats for running. Presumably your running number is higher than your cycling number then, as per the advice I've read?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2012)

Crackle said:


> I've read they're different but only had the courage to do one test on a bike, not running. I simply add a few beats for running. Presumably *your running number is higher than your cycling number then, as per the advice I've read?*


Certainly is, and almost bang on 5% different which I think is what 'everyone' says the difference is.


----------



## colly (4 Jan 2012)

I tested mine maybe 10 years ago when I first got a HR monitor. I've not tested it since mainly because I can't don't see the point but I have come close to it on some rides which have long very steep climbs.
Perhaps I'll re do it when I have a good few miles under my belt this year. It would be interesting to see if it has changed.


----------



## Garz (4 Jan 2012)

fenlandpsychocyclist said:


> (I'm 41, 5'6" and 190 pounds).
> Minimum: 48 bpm
> Maximum: 190bpm
> I usually ride around 150bpm-165bpm range.


 
A fellow squat member!

My Garmin Edge has not logged above 190, however I would say my max would therefore be a few above this maybe 195. Average seems to be around 150 split between zones 3 & 4.


----------



## The Jogger (4 Jan 2012)

Three years ago my RHR was 43 at it's best, now it's more like 52 My max on a stress test was 184 in a 10k race I hit 194........and I'm not fit although the cardiologist seemed impressed with the stress test.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (4 Jan 2012)

The Jogger said:


> Three years ago my RHR was 43 at it's best, now it's more like 52 My max on a stress test was 184 in a 10k race I hit 194........and I'm not fit although the cardiologist seemed impressed with the stress test.


Come to Horsham for a Joggers club time trial. The climb to the finish at Itchingfield, which you'll have done once on the first lap, will max you out


----------



## The Jogger (4 Jan 2012)

I might just do that when my little kidney stone kisses me goodbye and I start training again. A bit lardy at the mo.


----------



## The Jogger (4 Jan 2012)

is that in the first lap of barns green?


----------



## Andrew_P (5 Jan 2012)

Anyone who is not used to regular hard excercise and reading this and considering taking themselves to the max HR, my advice would be don't and see a Dr first!


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Jan 2012)

Blue said:


> There isn't any point in this. However, it's inportant to get the number so that training zones can be set with a view to altering the various 'thresholds' which determine ability to hold/produce particular efforts in competittion.


 
You dont need to know your max HR, you can work on lactate threshold HR to determine your zones. Since the lactate threshold is actually a sustainable threshold it is probably more meaningful than the MHR.



Crackle said:


> I've read they're different but only had the courage to do one test on a bike, not running. I simply add a few beats for running. Presumably your running number is higher than your cycling number then, as per the advice I've read?


 
Max numbers are different with running MHR being higher because running involves a bigger muscle group.



GregCollins said:


> One of my club members tried a max HR test on a local hill. She passed out and narrowly avoided getting run over by another cyclist! Doing it as a runner last year had me upchucking. Interestingly the max numbers are different across the two disciplines!


 
To find max HR you dont need to go to failure, you will reach MHR a reasonable margin before you actually pass out, testing to failure and passing out is needless and if anyone does this on purpose they are a certified moron.


----------



## Nebulous (5 Jan 2012)

The issue for somebody like me who is pretty new to this exercising lark is not knowing where the margins are. How do I know my heart has reached MHR before it either bursts (technical terminology) or I pass out? Testing to destruction doesn't seem very sensible when I don't keep a spare.

I've achieved the same number 3 times now, with a great deal of effort, and have never made it any higher, so I'm assuming that is my MHR. Coincidentally it is pretty close to the 220 minus age formula.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (5 Jan 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> To find max HR you dont need to go to failure, you will reach MHR a reasonable margin before you actually pass out, testing to failure and passing out is needless and if anyone does this on purpose they are a certified moron.


 
Who provides the certificaton....

btw I've seen people puke/pass out doing max HR tests in one of the nations most prestigous sports science facilities when supervised by professionals.


----------



## Rob3rt (5 Jan 2012)

There is a difference between something happening as a by product of pushing themselves very hard (yes people do pass out during such tests, but this is not the aim) and actually thinking that this is a required part of the process, which sadly all to many people seem to think. You (should) reach MHR before passing out, with a reasonable safety margin, i.e. if you go to the point of passing out and then look back at the data, your HR would have reached the peak some time before the point where you actually become unconscious, therefore, there is absolutely no need to push to the point for throwing up or passing out under the impression that you wont have completed the test adequately.


----------



## Blue (5 Jan 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> You dont need to know your max HR, you can work on lactate threshold HR to determine your zones. Since the lactate threshold is actually a sustainable threshold it is probably more meaningful than the MHR.


 
This is true, however, as the OP was about MHR I stuck with that parameter.

I myself have calculated my zones from my 25m TT downloads and use the calculations/charts contained in 'The Cyclists Training Bible' by Joe Friel. I feel this is accurate enough for someone at my level of the sport.

Without a powermeter I find using the HRM in conjunction with cadence and similar gearing etc., seems to be giving me good workouts that I can compare over time to judge improvements - roll on this years TT season! Maybe next year I will have saved enough for a powermeter and then the HRM will have something realy good to work with!!


----------



## GrasB (5 Jan 2012)

Rob3rt said:


> You dont need to know your max HR, you can work on lactate threshold HR to determine your zones. Since the lactate threshold is actually a sustainable threshold it is probably more meaningful than the MHR.


Depends what sort of training you're doing, some of my HIIT training LT isn't a useful marker it's HRmax. That said when doing longer runs LT is more useful & so is FTP. Something else to remember is that you're HRmax & more importantly your HR @ LT increases with cadence which throws a spanner in the works.


----------

