How hard do you ride?

[PaulSB]

If I used 220 minus my age it would give me a max of 151. Today I rode for 5 hours 8 minutes with a max HR of 177 and an average of 143. So if I went with 151 as my max it would mean I rode for 5 hours at 94.7% of my maximum.
If your bothered enough to use a HR monitor you might as well get it right.

I don't think you get the point. The majority are, in my view, simply interested to know their heart rate. It's a passing interest. I ride by feel, if I can chat freely I'm in Z1/Z2, if I have to pause before speaking to take a breath Z3, can't speak (lol) Z4/Z5. At the end of a ride I'm interested to see how long I spent in each zone. Beyond that I couldn't care less.

From a health perspective, by far the most important thing to me, would be if the comparative figures suddenly changed without reason I would speak to my GP. My other interest is to measure how quickly my HR drops after exertion, less than 20 bpm would worry me.

We're all different my average HR rarely exceeds 110, yesterday was 102 over 62 miles. We are very similar in age, if my HR average matched yours I would be concerned but as we are all different the comparison isn't valid.

I don't know but I imagine those with a low HR are likely to have a low max? My resting HR is 42. I have to work damn hard to reach 150 - 160.

My buddies who take their stats very seriously are far more interested in other metrics than HR.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

I asked MattGPT* the question
"Is 220-Age still considered a good rule for HRMax?"

I've summarised his its answer (for your tiny minds) below:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11153730/ 2001 Jan
Background: The age-predicted HRmax equation (i.e., 220 - age) is commonly used as a basis for prescribing exercise programs, as a criterion for achieving maximal exertion and as a clinical guide during diagnostic exercise testing. Despite its importance and widespread use, the validity of the HRmax equation has never been established in a sample that included a sufficient number of older adults.
...
Conclusions: 1) A regression equation to predict HRmax is 208 - 0.7 x age in healthy adults. 2) HRmax is predicted, to a large extent, by age alone and is independent of gender and habitual physical activity status. Our findings suggest that the currently used equation underestimates HRmax in older adults. This would have the effect of underestimating the true level of physical stress imposed during exercise testing and the appropriate intensity of prescribed exercise programs.


*The leading pseudo-science AI engine

I asked the Gemini Twins if the 220 - age is a load of bollocks

The formula "220 minus age" for estimating maximum heart rate (max HR) is indeed widely considered to be quite inaccurate, and therefore, not very reliable. Here's a breakdown:

• It's a Generalization:
  • The formula is a very basic generalization and doesn't account for individual variations in physiology.
    
    
  • Factors like genetics, fitness level, and overall health can significantly influence a person's actual max HR.
    
• Significant Variability:
  • Studies have shown that the formula can have a large margin of error, with actual max HR values varying significantly from the estimate.
  • This means that for some people, the estimate might be fairly close, but for many others, it could be way off.

 

[Dogtrousers]

As in you're worried you might be damaging your heart?

If you're already an avid exerciser, it's usually not a problem to reach or even exceed your maximum heart rate for short periods of time. However, people who have or are at risk for heart disease should be more cautious and check with their clinician about how to exercise safely

https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/all-about-your-heart-rate#:~:text=If you're already an,about how to exercise safely.

But if you can exceed it, then it isn't your maximum

 

[Webbo2]

I don't think you get the point. The majority are, in my view, simply interested to know their heart rate. It's a passing interest. I ride by feel, if I can chat freely I'm in Z1/Z2, if I have to pause before speaking to take a breath Z3, can't speak (lol) Z4/Z5. At the end of a ride I'm interested to see how long I spent in each zone. Beyond that I couldn't care less.

From a health perspective, by far the most important thing to me, would be if the comparative figures suddenly changed without reason I would speak to my GP. My other interest is to measure how quickly my HR drops after exertion, less than 20 bpm would worry me.

We're all different my average HR rarely exceeds 110, yesterday was 102 over 62 miles. We are very similar in age, if my HR average matched yours I would be concerned but as we are all different the comparison isn't valid.

I don't know but I imagine those with a low HR are likely to have a low max? My resting HR is 42. I have to work damn hard to reach 150 - 160.

My buddies who take their stats very seriously are far more interested in other metrics than HR.

No having a low resting heart rate doesn’t mean a low maximum. When I was racing in my 40’s I had a resting heart rate of under 40 my max was over 200.

 

[Binky]

Yes, you've got to be able to turn the gear over without stalling the legs on any hill.

If you gear down so you can maintain your natural cadence, any hill can be done in Z2.

I use a triple crank and a11-40 cass for cycling up mountains of Europe of Canaries islands. I can/could spin over 80 rpm for hours

This has to come into it. I ride a road bike with compact chainset and 11-32 cassette so my lowest gear is 34-32. On steep climbs which I consider to be 15%+ for any sustained effort then it's tough maintaining anything like 80rpm and more likely way below that. Hence effort increases therefore HR rises.

 

[Dogtrousers]

I go out primarily for the mental health benefits. Cycling puts me in a good state of mind. I track the numbers because I'm a collector (and I've outgrown stamps and train sets) but I don't use those numbers for anything other than comparison. I'm reconciled to riding as I ride. I'm not trying to be fitter, faster or more efficient (or whatever) - though those things might well happen as a natural result. It's enough for me just to be out and on my bike.

I could have written that myself.

(With the caveat that I did get my train set out of the loft for a quick play last year, and I was never very interested in stamps)

 

[yello]

In all seriousness, I might have to consider getting a different cassette on my main bike. The terrain around here does have me working sometimes harder than I'd like.

 

[CXRAndy]

This has to come into it. I ride a road bike with compact chainset and 11-32 cassette so my lowest gear is 34-32. On steep climbs which I consider to be 15%+ for any sustained effort then it's tough maintaining anything like 80rpm and more likely way below that. Hence effort increases therefore HR rises.

That's why your HR spikes towards maximum. I have been able to get up double digit gradients whilst seated. This is all down to gearing being much lower than a compact setup. Small chainring 26t, largest cog 40T

 

[Bonzothechippy]

I don’t think I can ride any harder than I already do. After a 75 mile ride, my leg muscles start twitching when I’m relaxing. I believe it’s my muscles telling me I rode a little to hard!
If I’m honest, my body is happy with 50 miles but gets upset after 55 miles. I’m happy with the weekend 50 mile trips with a few hills thrown in 👍

 

[Webbo2]

I don’t think I can ride any harder than I already do. After a 75 mile ride, my leg muscles start twitching when I’m relaxing. I believe it’s my muscles telling me I rode a little to hard!
If I’m honest, my body is happy with 50 miles but gets upset after 55 miles. I’m happy with the weekend 50 mile trips with a few hills thrown in 👍

Of course you can. You have to a thing called training which is not riding as hard as you can every time you ride your bike.

 

[Bonzothechippy]

Of course you can. You have to a thing called training which is not riding as hard as you can every time you ride your bike.

Well yes, but there has to be a cut of point, as there is limited time during the week and the one day I have to myself is a Sunday.
I’m assuming to train for longer distance, you would have to put more time in training.

 

[Rusty Nails]

After a very entertaining trawl through this thread I have come to the conclusion that the disdain for a rule of thumb calculation for Max HR is just to allow people to brag that it doesn’t apply to the real athletes amongst us.

 

[CXRAndy]

The differences of HR maximum using the 220-age is about as accurate as predicting weather with 'red sky at night rule of thumb

 

[Webbo2]

Well yes, but there has to be a cut of point, as there is limited time during the week and the one day I have to myself is a Sunday.
I’m assuming to train for longer distance, you would have to put more time in training.

Not necessarily. In order to go faster you could mix up your long rides with shorter speed work sessions.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The differences of HR maximum using the 220-age is about as accurate as predicting weather with 'red sky at night rule of thumb

Agreed. But accuracy to fine margins is overrated for mere mortals.

There’s a red sky tonight so I’ll get the shorts ready for tomorrow.