# Maximum Heart Rate Zones....



## RegG (21 Feb 2017)

I know this has probably been done to death elsewhere but.....

Until now, and since getting a Garmin last year, I have used the calculation of "220 - age" to get the maximum heart rate. However, in this weeks Cycling Weekly pull out guide to sportives, it suggests this formula for calculating your max heart rate: _Men 214 - (0.8 x age) or women 209 - (0.9 x age)
_
Based on the first formula (i.e. 220 - age) my max heart rate would be 157 bpm. Using the CW formula it is 163.6.

Which formula should be used or does it not matter to that extent as both are only a guide perhaps?


----------



## ianrauk (21 Feb 2017)

They are both arbitrary guides.
If you really want to find out your max heart rate. Go get it measured properly.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (21 Feb 2017)

Calculating your MHR by subtracting your age from a number is calculating your weight by adding your age to a number. It will be accurate once in every so many hundred people measured - like my non-working mantelpiece clock that's accurate twice a day.

If you really care about the number and have plans for doing something meaningful with it, have it measured in a stress test. It isn't a particularly nice procedure. Unfortunately even that isn't enough. You will then also have to have your lactate threshold measured so that you can work with the numbers.


----------



## S-Express (21 Feb 2017)

RegG said:


> Which formula should be used or does it not matter to that extent as both are only a guide perhaps?



All depends how serious you are about having an accurate number, as opposed to a complete guess. If you want an accurate MHR from which to calculate training zones, then a properly conducted MHR test is worthwhile. MHR testing is not pleasant though, but then neither is serious HII training. LTHR testing is another alternative, from which you can also calculate training zones.

As Yellow Saddle says, using a theoretical MHR calculation is a bit pointless though - a bit like having a watch set to the wrong time of day.


----------



## screenman (21 Feb 2017)

I can work out my shoe size by deducting 52 from my age number.

That 220 rubbish would give me 159, I see 175 when testing myself, done properly I would suggest it would be closer to 180.


----------



## Big T (21 Feb 2017)

I'm 57 and my max HR is 185, seen during a Wattbike max sprint session. According to the formula my max is 163, so it's way out.


----------



## Colin_P (21 Feb 2017)

Use the garmin itself to determine your max HR.

Go balls out as many or on as many rides / sprints / hills whatever and note it down. I'd say an averaged max over a minimum of ten rides is sufficient.

The excepted formulas are very crude and not worth bothering with.

Me personally, at the age of 46, with damaged heart muscle and taking a massive daily dose of beta blockers have a max heart rate of 118, I used the garmin to determine this. As a result I cycle slowly but steadily but can still do the hills but really really slowly.

Periodically re-test your max HR as it might change.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Feb 2017)

It's all about POWWWWWWWERRRRR, these days.


----------



## Colin_P (21 Feb 2017)

Racing roadkill said:


> It's all about POWWWWWWWERRRRR, these days.



But only if you are quite mad, have a credit card and don't tell the Mrs. Those pedals cost more than a few quid.


----------



## Racing roadkill (21 Feb 2017)

Colin_P said:


> But only if you are quite mad, have a credit card and don't tell the Mrs. Those pedals cost more than a few quid.


Very true that.


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Feb 2017)

Colin_P said:


> But only if you are quite mad, have a credit card and don't tell the Mrs. Those pedals cost more than a few quid.



It's like you are a fly on my wall three weeks ago..!


----------



## Tin Pot (21 Feb 2017)

RegG said:


> I know this has probably been done to death elsewhere but.....
> 
> Until now, and since getting a Garmin last year, I have used the calculation of "220 - age" to get the maximum heart rate. However, in this weeks Cycling Weekly pull out guide to sportives, it suggests this formula for calculating your max heart rate: _Men 214 - (0.8 x age) or women 209 - (0.9 x age)
> _
> ...



As others have said, all the formulas are horseshit. They are entirely made up with no basis in science..! There is much pseudoscience in the world of exercise.


----------



## Colin_P (21 Feb 2017)

Tin Pot said:


> It's like you are a fly on my wall three weeks ago..!



I take it you are up early every morning then? To intercept the post and hide the CC statement


----------



## Alan O (21 Feb 2017)

According to the 220 thing my peak HR should be 162. Today, on a fairly relaxed 12.5 mile ride my HR reached 164, and I was nowhere near pushing as hard as I could.

Alan


----------



## screenman (21 Feb 2017)

I would not like to pedal to my max on anything other than a turbo, having done quite a few the experience is quite unpleasant, I would not be safe on the road for a few minutes afterwards.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (21 Feb 2017)

RegG said:


> I know this has probably been done to death elsewhere but.....
> 
> Until now, and since getting a Garmin last year, I have used the calculation of "220 - age" to get the maximum heart rate. However, in this weeks Cycling Weekly pull out guide to sportives, it suggests this formula for calculating your max heart rate: _Men 214 - (0.8 x age) or women 209 - (0.9 x age)
> _
> ...


Guide I hope. I did the sums starting with my age of 63 and ended up with the same figures as the ones you've quoted. Then I recounted my age and decided I was 62.5. Which is just as well because I exceeded that max heart rate last week and, if I'm now dead, I haven't even noticed the difference.


----------



## Shortandcrisp (22 Feb 2017)

That 220 minus age thing nearly always underestimates mhr in my experience. Only way to truly determine yours is by enduring a little pain along the way!
But does anyone really need to know their mhr to ride sportives?


----------



## WelshJon (22 Feb 2017)

Cant speak for other models but my Garmin 520 has an auto-detect max feature. I originally sent it at 185 but a few hard rides later its around 190. Go out and sprint up a hill


----------



## ColinJ (22 Feb 2017)

WelshJon said:


> Cant speak for other models but my Garmin 520 has an auto-detect max feature. I originally sent it at 185 but a few hard rides later its around 190. Go out and sprint up a hill


Or grovel up a steep one! I once turned a 90 degree bend onto a hill with stretches of 15-20+% and encountered a strong headwind. My HR hit 198 bpm on that ... I was very close to my limit.


----------



## Milzy (22 Feb 2017)

I've hit 204 a few times trying to set a decent Strava time up steep long climbs. seem to manage tonking on at 180 for a few hours without much discomfort. My mate had heart surgery and he's not allowed to go over 160.


----------



## RegG (22 Feb 2017)

Thanks for all the replies which confirm more or less what I was thinking.


----------



## zigzag (1 Mar 2017)

there is only one way to find out your true max hr - to test it (which is v.unpleasant, but doable every now and then). otherwise it's a guesswork with no value in it.


----------



## screenman (1 Mar 2017)

There is a hill not far from here that will have my old Polar showing 220 every time, I know this is more to do with overhead wires than my old ticker.


----------



## Spartak (1 Mar 2017)

RegG said:


> I know this has probably been done to death elsewhere but.....
> 
> Until now, and since getting a Garmin last year, I have used the calculation of "220 - age" to get the maximum heart rate. However, in this weeks Cycling Weekly pull out guide to sportives, it suggests this formula for calculating your max heart rate: _Men 214 - (0.8 x age) or women 209 - (0.9 x age)
> _
> ...



If it's in Cycling Weekly then it must be true ! ......


----------



## Simon Head (3 Mar 2017)

Can you get any heart rate monitor that records your heart rate over a period of time?


----------



## ColinJ (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> Can you get any heart rate monitor that records your heart rate over a period of time?


Yes - lots (most of the more expensive ones?) do.


----------



## Simon Head (3 Mar 2017)

So can I presume that my Garmin Edge 1000 has then and that it is downloadable to a PC? 
What I think the most useful way of finding your max heart rate, is to sprint on turbos for X time, once warmed up, then average out your heart rate over this time, sprint 3 times to get a reliable average.
This should be regularly repeated as your fitness improves.
I am not sure yet how long the sprint should be for, maybe 20 seconds?
Also your heart rate will obviously initially rise but then I think it should reach a plateau zone. It is only this plateau that one should average


----------



## Yellow Saddle (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> So can I presume that my Garmin Edge 1000 has then and that it is downloadable to a PC?
> What I think the most useful way of finding your max heart rate, is to sprint on turbos for X time, once warmed up, then average out your heart rate over this time, sprint 3 times to get a reliable average.
> This should be regularly repeated as your fitness improves.
> I am not sure yet how long the sprint should be for, maybe 20 seconds?
> Also your heart rate will obviously initially rise but then I think it should reach a plateau zone. It is only this plateau that one should average



This won't get you even near your max. It is a hard, all-out effort at the cruel hands of a coach and a whip. The monitor should be invisible to you during this procedure. If you don't die, you're not doing it right.


----------



## S-Express (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> What I think the most useful way of finding your max heart rate, is to sprint on turbos for X time, once warmed up, then average out your heart rate over this time, sprint 3 times to get a reliable average.
> This should be regularly repeated as your fitness improves.
> I am not sure yet how long the sprint should be for, maybe 20 seconds?
> Also your heart rate will obviously initially rise but then I think it should reach a plateau zone. It is only this plateau that one should average



Sorry, this makes no sense as a way to establish MHR.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> So can I presume that my Garmin Edge 1000 has then and that it is downloadable to a PC?
> What I think the most useful way of finding your max heart rate, is to sprint on turbos for X time, once warmed up, then average out your heart rate over this time, sprint 3 times to get a reliable average.
> This should be regularly repeated as your fitness improves.
> I am not sure yet how long the sprint should be for, maybe 20 seconds?
> Also your heart rate will obviously initially rise but then I think it should reach a plateau zone. It is only this plateau that one should average


Max HR is just that, there's no averaging involved.


----------



## screenman (3 Mar 2017)

Good preparation for a max test is too pull your finger nails off with pliers, that will start to get close to how unpleasent it can be. Joking aside you should only feel sick for a few minutes afterwards, standing up will take slightly longer and having a conversation slightly longer than that.

Have fun, I forgot have somebody else take the numbers as you will not be able to see the high one's yourself.


----------



## screenman (3 Mar 2017)

Here is a couple of ways of doing a test,

http://www.timetrialtraining.co.uk/S6MaxHeartRateTests.htm


----------



## Yellow Saddle (3 Mar 2017)

screenman said:


> Good preparation for a max test is too pull your finger nails off with pliers, that will start to get close to how unpleasent it can be. Joking aside you should only feel sick for a few minutes afterwards, standing up will take slightly longer and having a conversation slightly longer than that.
> 
> Have fun, I forgot have somebody else take the numbers as you will not be able to see the high one's yourself.



Suddenly 220 minus your star sign doesn't sound so implausible after all.


----------



## Simon Head (3 Mar 2017)

This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results over for example 15 seconds. 
Yes you will get higher heart rates but these will be peaks limited to one offs not averages.
This will give you a useable max


----------



## screenman (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results over for example 15 seconds.
> Yes you will get higher heart rates but these will be peaks limited to one offs not averages.
> This will give you a useable max




Where would you use this sub max max.?


----------



## uclown2002 (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results over for example 15 seconds.
> Yes you will get higher heart rates but these will be peaks limited to one offs not averages.
> This will give you a useable max


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Mar 2017)

Max HR is the fastest your heart can pump. Once it gets to that rate, it simply will not go any faster. Unsurprisingly, this essential organ does not simply keep going faster and faster until it pops like in a cartoon.

Testing it usually involves words like "sick", "dizzy", "faint", "tears" and "vomiting".

Anything else is flim flam*

To date I've never got to maxHR on a bike despite tears and nearly collapsing.


*Joe Friel posits a seperate/distinct MaxHR-for-cycling in his training protocols.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results over for example 15 seconds.
> Yes you will get higher heart rates but these will be peaks limited to one offs not averages.
> This will give you a useable max


My HR wouldn't be anywhere near my known and tested max (204) after a 15 second sprint - in fact my HR would be lagging well behind and still climbing after your 15 sec period is over.

"realistic max" based on an average of 3 data samples as per your example would put any point of MHR testing and training based on zones so far off I might as well not bother to begin with.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Mar 2017)

RegG said:


> Which formula should be used


The common formula was devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell, then a young physician in the federal Public Health Service and his mentor, Dr. Samuel Fox, who led the service's program on heart disease. They were trying to determine how strenuously heart disease patients could exercise.

In preparation for a medical meeting, Dr. Haskell culled data from about 10 published studies in which people of different ages had been tested to find their maximum heart rates. The subjects were never meant to be a representative sample of the population, said Dr. Haskell, who is now a professor of medicine at Stanford. Most were under 55 and some were smokers or had heart disease. On an airplane traveling to the meeting, Dr. Haskell pulled out his data and showed them to Dr. Fox. ''We drew a line through the points and I said, 'Gee, if you extrapolate that out it looks like at age 20, the heart rate maximum is 200 and at age 40 it's 180 and at age 60 it's 160,'' Dr. Haskell said. At that point, Dr. Fox suggested a formula: maximum heart rate equals 220 minus age.

But, exercise physiologists said, these data, like virtually all exercise data, had limitations. They relied on volunteers who most likely were not representative of the general population. ''It's whoever came in the door,''. . . . .it was clear from the scattered data points that maximum heart rates could vary widely from the formula. ''If it says 150, it could be 180 and it could be 120".

But the formula quickly entered the medical literature. Even though it was almost always presented as an average maximum rate, the absolute numbers took on an air of received wisdom in part, medical scientists said, because the time was right . . . . there was a desire for a simple formula to estimate maximum heart rates. Soon, there was a worldwide heart-rate monitor industry, led by Polar Electro Inc, of Oulu, Finland, selling more than 750,000 monitors a year in the USA and citing the ''220 minus your age'' formula as a guide for training. The formula became increasingly entrenched, used to make graphs that are posted on the walls of health clubs and in cardiology treadmill rooms, prescribed in information for heart patients and inscribed in textbooks.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results over for example 15 seconds.
> Yes you will get higher heart rates but these will be peaks limited to one offs not averages.
> This will give you a useable max


You haven't tried this, have you? At the end of the sprint your HR will be lower than after 10 seconds of rest after the sprint. 
Max is max. Average is average of what?


----------



## Crackle (3 Mar 2017)

I've only done a ramp test once, there's no way I'm going to repeat it, never mind farking average it.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Mar 2017)

I don't think you'll reach your MaxHR by testing on a bike. The way to test it when running is to warm up properly to the bottom of a decent steady hill at least a km long. Attack the hill, gradually increasing the pace as you climb unleashing a superlative sprint half a minute before you think you'll not be able to go on much longer. This will hurt: if it's not hurting you aren't working hard enough. Wear a heart rate monitor with the record interval set to the minimum. When recovered (!) review the data. The biggest number is your MaxHR. I have no data to back this up (other than not being able to replicate my running max on a bike) but I suspect that on bike testing will not get one's HR as high but a well warmed up sustained effort up a one chevron hill with a good surface will get you close. My MaxHR has dropped 15-20 beats in as many years. I suggest it is also important to know your resting heart rate as it's the range eg 40 up to 190 that is a more valuable than just MaxHR, when setting zones.


----------



## S-Express (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results over for example 15 seconds.
> Yes you will get higher heart rates but these will be peaks limited to one offs not averages.
> This will give you a useable max



Then conduct some testing, write a paper on it, submit it for peer review and then present your findings at the next available exercise physiology conference. In the meantime, everyone else will still use the long established and conventional definition of HR max.


----------



## S-Express (3 Mar 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> I don't think you'll reach your MaxHR by testing on a bike.



For cycle training, your MHR on a bike will be the MHR number you need to use. It will be different for other sports.



Ajax Bay said:


> I suggest it is also important to know your resting heart rate as it's the range eg 40 up to 190 that is a more valuable than just MaxHR



RHR tells you nothing useful in terms of training zones.


----------



## zigzag (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results over for example 15 seconds.
> Yes you will get higher heart rates but these will be peaks limited to one offs not averages.
> This will give you a useable max


this would be way too easy, and give the meaningless reading - what's the point? ramp test or vo2max test (visualise a calamity waiting to happen if you fail to give your absolute best) are reliable ways to find out max hr within few beats per second. it's usually a team effort as it's too painful to get to that level on your own.

ps. ftp test, if done properly, can also achieve maximum hr value.


----------



## Ajax Bay (3 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> Can you get any heart rate monitor that records your heart rate over a period of time?





Simon Head said:


> can I presume that my Garmin Edge 1000 has then and that it is downloadable to a PC?





Simon Head said:


> This is where we're going to disagree because I think you should establish a realistic max heart rate that you will achieve on a 250 metre sprint. I really do believe this ought to be an average of 3 results


Guys - I think it would be worth giving Simon a break. Read these quotes. He's just got a Garmin 1000. He has not done a max HR test, YET. I'll bet a fair few posters on this thread have 
@Simon Head please do a test and let us know how you get on. Please include all 3 of your results. We can pick the highest and you can pick the average. You can use whichever figure you want for whatever purpose you think useful.


----------



## S-Express (3 Mar 2017)

zigzag said:


> ps. ftp test, if done properly, can also achieve maximum hr value.


Not sure why you need to be hitting MHR during an FTP test. Can you explain?


----------



## Tin Pot (3 Mar 2017)

zigzag said:


> this would be way too easy, and give the meaningless reading - what's the point? ramp test or vo2max test (visualise a calamity waiting to happen if you fail to give your absolute best) are reliable ways to find out max hr within few beats per second. it's usually a team effort as it's too painful to get to that level on your own.


Yes


> ps. ftp test, if done properly, can also achieve maximum hr value.


No


----------



## zigzag (3 Mar 2017)

S-Express said:


> Not sure why you need to be hitting MHR during an FTP test. Can you explain?


at the typical ftp test which is done over 20min* (after proper warm up) you are bound to achieve or almost achieve (depending on how much are you prepared to suffer) your max hr at the end of the test. mine was only two bpm below the "official" measured mhr, and i would have reached the mhr if an angry coach was shouting into my ear!
*the average power value is then multiplied by .95 to get the ftp figure


----------



## S-Express (3 Mar 2017)

zigzag said:


> at the typical ftp test which is done over 20min* (after proper warm up) you are bound to achieve or almost achieve (depending on how much are you prepared to suffer) your max hr at the end of the test.



Not aware of any FTP metric which involves a maximal effort. A 1min maximum, perhaps - but that's not the same thing.


----------



## zigzag (3 Mar 2017)

nearly every article i've read about ftp testing emphasized the importance of giving your absolute best (i.e. max effort) over 20 minutes - hence a pretty accurate indicator of mhr at the end of 20min


----------



## S-Express (3 Mar 2017)

zigzag said:


> nearly every article i've read about ftp testing emphasized the importance of giving your absolute best (i.e. max effort) over 20 minutes - hence a pretty accurate indicator of mhr at the end of 20min



Sure, but your 'absolute best' at 20min pace is unlikely to see you hitting MHR, that's all I'm saying. MHR is by definition a maximal effort - in other words, one that can only be 'sustained' for a few seconds at the very most.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (3 Mar 2017)

zigzag said:


> nearly every article i've read about ftp testing emphasized the importance of giving your absolute best (i.e. max effort) over 20 minutes - hence a pretty accurate indicator of mhr at the end of 20min


You're confusing terms. A 20min test is used to calculate the maximum sustainable output for an hour, absolute maximum power output won't last more than a few seconds.

One figure is a somewhat steady effort with no reason or guarantee to be a reliable source of MHR, the other is likely to be a shortlived anaerobic spike during which HR doesn't respond quickly enough to effort.

Edit: Beaten to it


----------



## Simon Head (4 Mar 2017)

I have just read the 'Wattbike' FTP testing and this seems much more sensible and useful than max HR although I think it should be completed 3 times so one accustomed to doing it. I'll give it a go Tuesday


----------



## S-Express (4 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> I have just read the 'Wattbike' FTP testing and this seems much more sensible and useful than max HR although I think it should be completed 3 times so one accustomed to doing it. I'll give it a go Tuesday


But this thread is not about FTP testing, it is about MHR testing. You seem to be talking about something entirely different.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Mar 2017)

Simon Head said:


> I have just read the 'Wattbike' FTP testing and this seems much more sensible and useful than max HR although I think it should be completed 3 times so one accustomed to doing it. I'll give it a go Tuesday


Again, an average of 3 tests is not the answer. 3 tests not done correctly then averaged out isn't going to later produce any useful training zones as a percentage of FTP.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Mar 2017)

GGJ said:


> watching Strada Bianche on Eurosport and thought I would see what my HR was


That exciting then! Have a coffee.


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (4 Mar 2017)

> Forget about MHR,RHR and FTP, just go out and ride your bike


----------



## S-Express (4 Mar 2017)

GGJ said:


> Sitting here watching Strada Bianche on Eurosport and thought I would see what my HR was
> 
> 
> Connected up to the Wahoo Fitness app and this came up
> ...



Not exactly sure how that moves the debate on, but thanks for posting.


----------



## Ajax Bay (4 Mar 2017)

S-Express said:


> Not exactly sure how that moves the debate on


Perhaps he/she is trying to initiate a Resting HR competition.


----------



## HLaB (5 Mar 2017)

The formulas are both cr@p for me. My max HR is 201bpm but the 220-age has me at 180bpm and the other formula at 182bpm


----------



## MrGrumpy (5 Mar 2017)

Have to say the formulas are not actually that far out for an Auld bugger like me. Max HR I've saw is 179 bpm . So the 220- age is only a few bpm out ?!


----------

