Realistic Max HR?

prawny

I've just bought myself a Turbo and an HRM to try and do some structured training this year.

Last night I tried to find out my HR max so I can work my zones out so after a 10 min warm up I started ramping up the gears ending with a 30 second balls out sprint.

I was quite surprised to see it go over 200 through the sweat and max recorded was 203. Is this likely? I'm 28, 13 stone and reasonably pedalling fit.

I just was expecting more around the 190 mark.

Any ideas?

jonmack

If that's what your HRM says then I'd go on that. Unless of course you want to wait a few days, do the test again and then see what it says.

FWIW, I'm 23, 66kg, and mine's 199.

gregg.pedder

Sounds ok. Max HR and VO2 Max varies massively depending on the individual. I recorded my Max HR (203 also) on a Concept 2 Rowing Machine doing a sprint.

I was 23 at the time 72 kgs and fairly fit.

My recent Max heart rate on the Turbo Trainer was 199, but I think I still had a bit more to give tbh. Will do a test at some point.

GP

prawny

Should I be looking at my absolute max? Or is it over a length of time?
30 sec ave or something?

ut_och_cykla

Max is max - its a fleeting moment just before the red haze spreads across your vision!

gregg.pedder

Absolute max i.e as high as it can possibly go.

After hitting 203 on the Concept 2 I collapsed off it to a heap on the floor, was rather tired.

GP

andrewjoseph

my max hr is taken after the effort has started to make me grey out, i.e. vision starts to darken and blur.

50yrs old, 75kg, 190 max hr.

this tends to happen up long steep climbs on my mountain bike. some advice i've seen to obtain max hr is to do several 5 min hill reps in quick succession, trying to go faster each time.

Pep

HR measured 203 for me too.
I was 26, maybe 27, at the end of a running session of short reps (10x300m) with long recovery (3min).

Brommers76

34, 5'10'', 10.5stone and 184.

Everybody is different.

MikeyC

prawny wrote:

I've just bought myself a Turbo and an HRM to try and do some structured training this year.

Last night I tried to find out my HR max so I can work my zones out so after a 10 min warm up I started ramping up the gears ending with a 30 second balls out sprint.

I was quite surprised to see it go over 200 through the sweat and max recorded was 203. Is this likely? I'm 28, 13 stone and reasonably pedalling fit.

I just was expecting more around the 190 mark.

Any ideas?

The classic formula for this has 220-Age no scientific basis. The one I use is this
=205.8-(0.685* Age) which is Robergs formula. However it is only a guidline. We all have different physiologies and so the Max HRM will vary. The best way to determine it is to do a hill climb. On the 3rd rep you should easlily be at MaxHRM. I'm 52 and the formula gives me 170 bpm but my own tests give me 190 bpm "red-line" before the heart rate starts to spike around. If you are interested in the science of this send me a PM and I will send you a copy of robergs paper and a spreadsheet for working out training zones.

Regards

Mike

Pross

Seems a perfectly normal max HR - obviously means you have to maintain quite a high HR in your training zones though

Look up how to perform a ramp test and then use that, it may be that you didn't quite reach your max HR!

prawny

Pross wrote:

Seems a perfectly normal max HR - obviously means you have to maintain quite a high HR in your training zones though

Look up how to perform a ramp test and then use that, it may be that you didn't quite reach your max HR!

I flippin well hope I did!

But I fear you might be right

Pross

I've got this as a PDF scan from somewhere but not sure where (possibly Pete Read's Black Book?)

THE MAXIMUM HEART RATE TEST
First a serious warning. . .
If you are in any doubt whatsoever about any aspect of your general health,
particularly your heart muscle and other major organs then do not attempt to
undertake this test. Please don’t take this warning lightly. If there is a
niggling doubt at the back of your mind then at the very least consult your
doctor or even ask for a full medical.
Without first undertaking a maximum heart rate test it is difficult, if not
impossible, to train accurately in the heart rate zones, levels or windows that
I suggest.
There are a number of ways to attain max heart rate but the one that has
stood the test of time is the progressive ramp test that is also known as the
Conconi test. This being named after the Italian sports scientist who initially
developed it some twenty years ago
The ramp test can be conducted in a number of ways but however you
decide to do it the effort must be both progressive and constant.
METHOD ONE: ON THE ROAD
If you don't have a turbo, the max test can be undertaken on a long constant
gradient. You will need a speedometer and timing device of some description
on your bike.
First, warm up for ten minutes or so. Then engage a gear that you find
slightly too big and ride to a point where you are becoming very slightly
breathless. Increase your effort by two miles per hour every 30 seconds
while remaining in the same gear. When you feel 100% exhausted do one
final sprint until your legs go completely. Note your heart rate at this point.
You must ride to total exhaustion, if you don’t then it is highly unlikely you
will have achieved your accurate max.
If you aren't happy with the result please do not be tempted to try again
immediately. The test is extremely demanding so leave it about a week
before having a second attempt.
Do not be tempted to do just one sprint from cold as a short cut to a max
result. It doesn't work because the instant build up of lactic acid will inhibit
your effort before you reach max. For obvious reasons this test done on the
open road cannot be as accurate as when done in a controlled environment.
However, some cyclists are actually able to attain a higher heart hate on the
road than on the turbo. So by all means try both methods if you want but
allow a week between tests to ensure complete recovery.
10
METHOD TWO: ON THE TURBO TRAINER
You will need a turbo trainer, training bike, ideally fitted with a block in one
tooth increments. Reliable heart rate monitor, paper and pen, someone to
help you.
Ensure the bike is well fixed to the turbo and that all the gears are working
perfectly. Check that the tyre is inflated to the pressure you will always use
when testing, I use 100 PSI or 7 Bar. Test that the monitor is working well,
and that the signal from the transmitter belt is showing strongly on the
receiver. Have your helper standing by with pen and paper, and make sure
he knows exactly what to do before you start. It is impossible for you to
issue any instructions once you are well into the test.
Your helper will need to do the following:
 Keep an accurate record of your heart rate every minute.
 Remind you to change gear every two minutes.
 Ensure you are maintaining the correct cadence at all times.
 Encourage you verbally toward the end of the test.
 Instruct you to stop immediately if he can see any problem arising
during the test.
The Test:
Warm up briskly in a small gear for approx 10 minutes.
Engage the big ring and the lowest of your top six gears (52x18?) And pedal
at a consistent cadence of 95 RPM for 2 minutes
Then change up one sprocket while maintaining the same revs.
Continue by changing up one sprocket every two minutes until you cannot
continue because of total exhaustion.
This must be a 100% plus, all out effort.
Change onto a small gear and keep your legs moving. Do not stop
immediately the test finishes, it is extremely dangerous to do so.
11
Instead of using revs in certain gears, you can use miles per hour or watts if
you have the facility on your turbo.
This would mean increasing your effort by 1 mph or 20 watts instead of
changing onto a higher sprocket.
Anyway, once you have completed the test you will have a result showing
heart rate in given gears/speed or watts or whatever method of resistance
you have used.
You can then make up a simple graph like the one on page 65. To keep a
check on further development in your fitness levels it is then simply a matter
of adding each subsequent test result in a different colour.
Before actually reaching your true max you will have passed through a stage
which is known by a number of names such as . . . The anaerobic, lactate or
ventilatory threshold, or more commonly as the point at which we go into
oxygen debt.
In most cases this will show up as a “leveling out” of the graph two or three
minutes before you have reached max. Conconi called this the pulse
deflection and it generally coincides with the heart rate at which the majority
of cyclists are able to race for approx 30 minutes.
Always remember, your personal maximum heart rate could be anywhere
between 160-220 beats per minute with a pulse deflection point of around 15
beats below your max.
Do not use the hopeless but popular equation of 220 minus your age to
arrive at your max heart rate. It is invariably inaccurate in about 95% of all
athletes. In short it doesn’t work.
Once you have arrived at your true max, use the training levels chart to
personalize your own individual sessions or in fact your entire programme.
The more accurately you are able to work in conjunction with your personal
heart rate levels, the less training you need to do.
There is a possibility that you cannot create enough resistance on your turbo
to even reach max heart rate. If this is the case you will either have to do
the test on the road as in 'Test 1" or increase the resistance on your existing
turbo by simply adjusting the roller so it presses harder on the tyre. If you
have a turbo with a variable magnetic resistance then the problem will not
arise.

sub55

personally cannot do it on a turbo max is always 5/6 beats more chasing the goats in a RR

P_Tucker

Has no-one mentioned that there are better things to base training zones on than Max HR FFS? Thought not.

meanredspider

I've never reached my max HR on a bike whether that's up a long hard hill or in a Spinning class. Running, on the other hand, will do it. I know my colleagues have a similar experience.

neeb

I base mine on the values I get at a certain point when doing a certain route on the Tacx Fortius real-life-video. There is a 30min + climb that I do at maximum sustainable effort, and I always finish with a final sprint over the summit. This usually leaves me barely aware of my surroundings for 20 seconds and breathing explosively to avoid passing out. You definitely need to combine a long sustained hard aerobic effort with a final maximum effort anaerobic sprint.

What I'm never quite sure about is when this produces a very short duration spike, like a vertical line, that is a bit higher than what I think my maxHR is - not sure if this is an absolute maximum HR or just the HR monitor having a hiccup, as I know it does sometimes does this.

chrisw12

MikeyC wrote:

prawny wrote:

I've just bought myself a Turbo and an HRM to try and do some structured training this year.

Last night I tried to find out my HR max so I can work my zones out so after a 10 min warm up I started ramping up the gears ending with a 30 second balls out sprint.

I was quite surprised to see it go over 200 through the sweat and max recorded was 203. Is this likely? I'm 28, 13 stone and reasonably pedalling fit.

I just was expecting more around the 190 mark.

Any ideas?

The classic formula for this has 220-Age no scientific basis. The one I use is this
=205.8-(0.685* Age) which is Robergs formula. However it is only a guidline. We all have different physiologies and so the Max HRM will vary. The best way to determine it is to do a hill climb. On the 3rd rep you should easlily be at MaxHRM. I'm 52 and the formula gives me 170 bpm but my own tests give me 190 bpm "red-line" before the heart rate starts to spike around. If you are interested in the science of this send me a PM and I will send you a copy of robergs paper and a spreadsheet for working out training zones.

Regards

Mike

Funny, even though the 220-age has 'no scientific basis', the one you recommend gives the same answer. :shock: and both of them are 20 out for you anyway :shock: :shock:




Not aimed at anyone in particular.
I feel sorry for the 220-age formula, it get's a lot of bad press from people who have little statistical understanding, as a first stab at a formula is it so bad? I bet the ancient people who suggested that pi=3 had a similar hard time of things.

Velonutter

MikeyC wrote:

prawny wrote:

I've just bought myself a Turbo and an HRM to try and do some structured training this year.

Last night I tried to find out my HR max so I can work my zones out so after a 10 min warm up I started ramping up the gears ending with a 30 second balls out sprint.

I was quite surprised to see it go over 200 through the sweat and max recorded was 203. Is this likely? I'm 28, 13 stone and reasonably pedalling fit.

I just was expecting more around the 190 mark.

Any ideas?

The classic formula for this has 220-Age no scientific basis. The one I use is this
=205.8-(0.685* Age) which is Robergs formula. However it is only a guidline. We all have different physiologies and so the Max HRM will vary. The best way to determine it is to do a hill climb. On the 3rd rep you should easlily be at MaxHRM. I'm 52 and the formula gives me 170 bpm but my own tests give me 190 bpm "red-line" before the heart rate starts to spike around. If you are interested in the science of this send me a PM and I will send you a copy of robergs paper and a spreadsheet for working out training zones.

Regards

Mike

That works out bang on for me, 51, 5ft 10" 87kg, max recorded heart rate is 171, the calculation above says 170.865, fairly accurate in my mind.

I would love a copy of Robergs Papers and spread sheets, so if you wouldn't mind have sent you a PM.

ireland57

The 220 - age calc for me is about 23 beats out.
220 - 53 = 167.

I've only come close to maxing my hr not actually topped it yet.
It's been to 187 several times but I felt there was a tiny bit left in the tank.
I use 190 as my max.

neeb

220-age does seem to grossly underestimate HRmax for a lot of slightly older cyclists. It makes you wonder how much the supposed decline in HRmax with age is actually to do with aging as opposed to gradual physiological adaptations to a sedentary lifestyle in the general (non-cycling and non-exercising) population.

prawny

P_Tucker wrote:

Has no-one mentioned that there are better things to base training zones on than Max HR FFS? Thought not.

Like?

Not including power. I don't have £1000 lying around

Pross

prawny wrote:

P_Tucker wrote:

Has no-one mentioned that there are better things to base training zones on than Max HR FFS? Thought not.

Like?

Not including power. I don't have £1000 lying around

+1, other than power I don't know of anything "better" than HR. If someone can point me in the right direction for a better alternative at a similarly affordable price to HR I'm more than happy to try it as I want to get more structure in my training and make my limited training time more efficient.

amaferanga

I guess he's referring to using threshold HR to define zones instead of HRmax. That's what I used to set my zones when I trained using HR. Not sure if it's better, just different. Working out your threshold HR is easier than determining HRmax though.

danowat

Would a balls out 10mile TT be a decent representation of threshold HR?.

I did a MHR test a few years ago, which I have no interest in doing again!!, just wondering if using a very recent, hard 10mile TT would be worthwhile basing threshold HR off.

Also, is there some literature availabe for calculating cycling zones from threshold HR?

prawny

amaferanga wrote:

I guess he's referring to using threshold HR to define zones instead of HRmax. That's what I used to set my zones when I trained using HR. Not sure if it's better, just different. Working out your threshold HR is easier than determining HRmax though.

That may well be. I've not heard of this before I might have to do some reading. It does annoy me a bit though when people come on to obvious newbie threads and just slag things off and offer nothing constructive. That's the internets though I suppose.

Garry H

If you can correctly identify Max HR, then I can't see there being any difference to using Threshold HR.

Pross

amaferanga wrote:

I guess he's referring to using threshold HR to define zones instead of HRmax. That's what I used to set my zones when I trained using HR. Not sure if it's better, just different. Working out your threshold HR is easier than determining HRmax though.

How do you calculate your threshold HR and zones without knowing your max HR? (Genuine question as I always understood it to all be linked to max HR).