How hard do you ride?

[Webbo2]

30 miles and up to 3000', presumably at a reasonable average speed: you would have to be pretty fit not to hit the upper bump stop on your HR.

If you are exceeding your Max HR for significant periods of time then you are almost certainly overdoing things, imo.

I know that the depths can be plumbed when discussing the ins & outs of Max HR calculation but, as an older guy, the 220-age calculation serves me well and I deliberately do not go on routes where I know that this figure would be exceeded for significant amounts of time.

If you are exceeding your max HR Shirley that then is your new max HR. 🤔

 

[sevenfourate]

I'm nippy for a big lad on heavy bike. That does mean i have to push harder than most to keep up the weight weenies around me - lethagically averaging 75w on the same ride. Benefit is i get to maintain my heavily proportioned torso with a shed-load more calories upon arrival home than they do.

Who said cycling doesn't have benefits ?

 

[SpokeyDokey]

If you are exceeding your max HR Shirley that then is your new max HR. 🤔

I probably should have written 'age expected maximum heart rate' or similar.

 

[Webbo2]

I probably should have written 'age expected maximum heart rate' or similar.

There is no such thing as age expected maximum heart rate. It’s an individual thing.

 

[Ian H]

I wear a HRM specifically to make sure I don't blow up. When I'm getting near my max HR I try if possible to back off so I don't blow my doors.
I know should be able to do his on feel but not always and I find it useful.

I find that, if I overdo it, riding gently for the next ten or twenty miles usually allows recovery.

 

[PaulSB]

Well no if I reach max HR I cannot sustain that for any period, less than a minute I'd think otherwise I'm blowing up. My point is just about every ride I am hitting max HR either by design or by fact that is needed to get up a hard climb.

You shouldn't worry about that. Hitting max HR for a short period happens to me quite often, usually it's nothing more than a spike brought on by a sudden effort.

 

[wafter]

When I had the road bike and was younger / more enthusiastic I used to regularly hit the higher end of the HR range.

Now I'm none of the above and cycle mostly for utility / escape it's rare that I get above 80% of max; although this does happen occasionally if not for any sustained period of time.

 

[PaulSB]

30 miles and up to 3000', presumably at a reasonable average speed: you would have to be pretty fit not to hit the upper bump stop on your HR.

If you are exceeding your Max HR for significant periods of time then you are almost certainly overdoing things, imo.

I know that the depths can be plumbed when discussing the ins & outs of Max HR calculation but, as an older guy, the 220-age calculation serves me well and I deliberately do not go on routes where I know that this figure would be exceeded for significant amounts of time.

For years I used 220 - age until a friend persuaded me I should do a calculation based on performance. We worked this out and went with it for 3 - 4 years.

I recently joined a club ride which pushed me well beyond my current comfort zone. I was blowing out my arse for 35-40 miles and could barely talk. Real Z3/4 stuff. I was astonished most of the ride recorded as Z2.

I spoke to my PT about this. She's a, very good, cyclist so completely understands what I described. I have huge respect for her opinions and after a long discussion I reverted to 220 - age giving me a max of 150. My stats now more accurately reflect what I'm physically experiencing. My fitness is still building post crash and I suspect in 2- 3 months I will be changing the max to 155 - 160.

 

[Webbo2]

For 220 minus your age being accurate you might as well blindfold yourself and stick a pin in a list of numbers and use that. At the age of 41 I hit a max HR of 204 climbing in the Alps, more recently I’ve 188 a couple of times and I’m 69. If I used 220 minus my age to get my zones I would be vastly under training.

 

[Dogtrousers]

For 220 minus your age being accurate you might as well blindfold yourself and stick a pin in a list of numbers and use that. At the age of 41 I hit a max HR of 204 climbing in the Alps, more recently I’ve 188 a couple of times and I’m 69. If I used 220 minus my age to get my zones I would be vastly under training.

Could be that us oldies are particularly affected by that metric.

My 220-age would be 158. The max that I actually use is the highest I've recorded within the last year or so (reliably, excluding sudden spikes of a zillion BPM). Is 170-odd, I forget exactly. 178 I think. Quite a difference.

Now, I'm aware that's probably not my real MHR and if you put me in a lab and strapped me to a trainer and beat me with sticks I could probably go higher.

 

[presta]

I cycle on average 3 times a week, usually 30miles per ride but with an elevation gain of 2500-3000ft so I'd class as hilly. Some rides longer, 50miles or so but with corresponding amount of climbing.
I find it almost impossible to not go hard even if I try not to. Getting up a 15% incline takes effort no matter what.
I do enjoy pushing myself but I wonder if it's detrimental over time to constantly get next max HR on almost every ride.
Been lots of articles on benefits of zone 2 etc but unless I ride up and down same 5miles stretch of road I inevitably get into hills and keeping HR down is then nigh on impossible.

What does everyone else do? Note I'm a recreational cyclist, I don't race I just do it for fun (and exercise).

I used to take it carefully because I had to, but that didn't stop me from cycling in hilly terrain like the Lake District etc.

FWIW, this is the data from my last tour:

As you can see, some of the rides are a comparable distance/ascent to yours, but my speed and HR are still quite modest. Note that the HR data are daily averages, not maxima. I was trying to keep my HR below 130bpm (78% MHR) on the climbs, and my highest daily average was 109 (65%) with an overall average of 99 (59%). There were no occasions when I came anywhere near 220-age, or it would have been game over for me. (Climbing 25-30% gradients I would be in a 17.5" gear, going as slowly as I could balance the bike: ~2.3mph)

Whilst riding I've had joggers come past me before, so fair to say I ride not too hard - enough to stop me tipping over

I was overtaken by joggers going up Ribblesdale toward Helwith Bridge, I consoled myself with the thought of overtaking them going down the other side, but when I got to the top they were already back at the bottom.

I was overtaken by walkers going up Kirkstone via The Struggle.

There is no such thing as age expected maximum heart rate. It’s an individual thing.

I've had a couple of Bruce tests at the hospital. They take you up to 220-age, but they don't push it to see how far you can get.

I find that, if I overdo it, riding gently for the next ten or twenty miles usually allows recovery.

If I overdo it, it's usually an early bath, sooner or later. On one tour I got a bit overenthusiastic one day, and despite soldiering on very carefully for another week, I had to abandon it in the end.

For 220 minus your age being accurate you might as well blindfold yourself and stick a pin in a list of numbers and use that. At the age of 41 I hit a max HR of 204 climbing in the Alps, more recently I’ve 188 a couple of times and I’m 69. If I used 220 minus my age to get my zones I would be vastly under training.

My record is 260bpm sitting in the armchair, but that doesn't prove I'm fit & healthy.

 

[PaulSB]

For 220 minus your age being accurate you might as well blindfold yourself and stick a pin in a list of numbers and use that. At the age of 41 I hit a max HR of 204 climbing in the Alps, more recently I’ve 188 a couple of times and I’m 69. If I used 220 minus my age to get my zones I would be vastly under training.

I'm 70 and could hit 178 about 18 months ago. The last 12 months I've spent recovering from a major crash so couldn't get near it at present.

The point though is taking 178 as my max because I could, under extreme effort, hit it is no different than your pin and a list. There's a big difference between the highest rate one regularly hits and those which happen ocassionally. My 178 was at the end of the third of three cat 3 climbs!!! Not an every day event.

 

[Jameshow]

I used to take it carefully because I had to, but that didn't stop me from cycling in hilly terrain like the Lake District etc.

FWIW, this is the data from my last tour:

View attachment 766623

As you can see, some of the rides are a comparable distance/ascent to yours, but my speed and HR are still quite modest. Note that the HR data are daily averages, not maxima. I was trying to keep my HR below 130bpm (78% MHR) on the climbs, and my highest daily average was 109 (65%) with an overall average of 99 (59%). There were no occasions when I came anywhere near 220-age, or it would have been game over for me. (Climbing 25-30% gradients I would be in a 17.5" gear, going as slowly as I could balance the bike: ~2.3mph)

I was overtaken by joggers going up Ribblesdale toward Helwith Bridge, I consoled myself with the thought of overtaking them going down the other side, but when I got to the top they were already back at the bottom.

I was overtaken by walkers going up Kirkstone via The Struggle.

I've had a couple of Bruce tests at the hospital. They take you up to 220-age, but they don't push it to see how far you can get.

If I overdo it, it's usually an early bath, sooner or later. On one tour I got a bit overenthusiastic one day, and despite soldiering on very carefully for another week, I had to abandon it in the end.

My record is 260bpm sitting in the armchair, but that doesn't prove I'm fit & healthy.

I love the extra 50 miles on your last day to get to 1400 well done! 👍

 

[Dogtrousers]

I'm 70 and could hit 178 about 18 months ago. The last 12 months I've spent recovering from a major crash so couldn't get near it at present.

The point though is taking 178 as my max because I could, under extreme effort, hit it is no different than your pin and a list. There's a big difference between the highest rate one regularly hits and those which happen ocassionally. My 178 was at the end of the third of three cat 3 climbs!!! Not an every day event.

But isn't "I could, under extreme effort hit it" kinda the definition of what maximum HR is?

It's the highest possible. That's what I've always thought anyway. I could be wrong.

But that's not to say you have to use that for your zones. If 220-age gives you zones that work for you then fine.

 

[PaulSB]

But isn't "I could, under extreme effort hit it" kinda the definition of what maximum HR is?

It's the highest possible. That's what I've always thought anyway. I could be wrong.

But that's not to say you have to use that for your zones. If 220-age gives you zones that work for you then fine.

Yes, I agree with your point. It would seem logical and I don't have the knowledge to argue against it. My thinking is that using a maximum I've achieved once in recent years is a bit misleading. I have a low HR and using my max of 178 means I'd rarely get out of the theoretical Z1/2.

I feel the age calculation is sufficient for me as a keen, club level rider. Interestingly each of the main calculators give me a range of results:

220 - 70 = 150
214 - (0.8 x age) = 158
206.9 - (0.67 x age) = 160
211 - (0.64 x age) = 166

Once I've regained my fitness I feel 158/160 is the realistic rate. Overall though I'm just interested in having known numbers I can monitor for any worrying changes.