Historical HR Data to find MHR

leeshields

Hi

I've been using a HRM for the last year or so as much out of interest as anything but I've started thinking about it for training too.

I'm 45 and about 13st 5lb - using various HR calculators my Max HR should be about 175-178 depending where you look.

I regularly hit 185 and peak at about 187 or 188 when doing short really hard sections (I mountain bike and road so get a real mix of terrain)

My question is am I safe to assume my real MHR is 187 rather than the calculated estimates?? Or does it mean I'm killing myself?

My recovery is usually pretty good and I'm rarely out of breath long after a section like that

Thanks

Lee

imposter2.0

Use the highest number you have recorded. Although there is no guarantee that your real MHR is not higher...

gethinceri

If I used the 220 minus my age (47) I'd have burst something a long time ago. I regularly see 190+ and over 200 from time to time. Not sure of the best measure, we're all killing ourselves but it's just that we're trying to enjoy ourselves at the same time.

tangled_metal

When I used to strap on a cardiosport hrm when cycling I regularly got to 99-100% of my MHR according to 220 minus my age formula. I still had something left in the tank. I did have a book from polar about HRM training for running. At the back it had a some tables showing how to adjust your MHR based on a few factors, one was your pace or best time in certain race distances. I wasn't a runner so never bothered with the adjustment. I did read something else which suggested my MHR was about 10+ beats higher than 220 less age.

NeXXus

Tangled Metal wrote:

When I used to strap on a cardiosport hrm when cycling I regularly got to 99-100% of my MHR according to 220 minus my age formula. I still had something left in the tank. I did have a book from polar about HRM training for running. At the back it had a some tables showing how to adjust your MHR based on a few factors, one was your pace or best time in certain race distances. I wasn't a runner so never bothered with the adjustment. I did read something else which suggested my MHR was about 10+ beats higher than 220 less age.

Use the highest HR you have seen, not baseless figures from the internet or books

Tom Dean

Just do a test

wongataa

leeshields wrote:

Hi

I've been using a HRM for the last year or so as much out of interest as anything but I've started thinking about it for training too.

I'm 45 and about 13st 5lb - using various HR calculators my Max HR should be about 175-178 depending where you look.

I regularly hit 185 and peak at about 187 or 188 when doing short really hard sections (I mountain bike and road so get a real mix of terrain)

My question is am I safe to assume my real MHR is 187 rather than the calculated estimates?? Or does it mean I'm killing myself?

My recovery is usually pretty good and I'm rarely out of breath long after a section like that

Thanks

Lee

The calculations are very very unlikely to give anyone there true max HR and can be considered as useless. You have already found out they are useless for you. The only way to find out your max HR is to do a test to find it which will be unpleasant. You are very unlikely to reach your max HR on a ride. It takes some special effort to reach it and if you do you will feel ill and want to collapse in a heap to recover.

bolingbroke

I think the reason the age calculations exist is because, like wongataa says, you have to almost kill yourself to actually reach your max heart rate so a practical test isn't the best idea. According to the old 220-age figure my max HR should be 193, I don't think I've ever seen it go beyond 185 on any of the gadgets I use. So while the 220-age figure is obviously wrong for you it would be wrong to take 188 as your max, it will be higher.

florerider

My actual was 30 higher than the formula. The test nearly killed me though....did it on the rollers and the faint and dizzy bit at the end was interesting to say the least.

First few months I set the zones by the formula, made a big difference once reset.

Silly Old Hector

I followed the British Cycling test protocol and my calculated MHR is significantly above where I normally max out on the road (like above, something like 30 above my on road max).

ric/rstsport

calculating HRmax by 220-age is only useful for group averages, as this is how it was originally calculated. i seem to recall that the SEM is something like ±15 b/min and from experience, there are many people (young and old) that i've tested (in a lab) that have tested below their estimated HRmax (and many who've tested above).

HRmax is also exercise modality dependent, that is it'll differ between different sports (as does VO2max).

If you want to find out your HRmax, you'll need to test it, rather than relying on estimates

Ric

cougie

If you think about this - how can your Maximum Heart Rate be lower than the HR you've seen achieved many times ?

It is the Maximum figure you're after.....

NeXXus

cougie wrote:

If you think about this - how can your Maximum Heart Rate be lower than the HR you've seen achieved many times ?

It is the Maximum figure you're after.....

Because the calculator used was wrong

craker

Slightly O/T, can I use historical HR data to work out LT / V02 max?

I'm currently reading Joe Friel's excellent book on the subject, he has suggested some workouts to establish this. Also he's quite against MHR as it's so difficult (and painful) to measure.

I'm running a series of 5K events over the winter, I reckon that HR in the final 2/3 of the race (excluding the run in) should be there. For my purposes - as someone who looks at their HR monitor occasionally and wonders if the numbers mean anything significant - it will probably do.

ric/rstsport

HR cannot be used to estimate LT or VO2max. Sure, you can find calculators on the internet that do this, but you may as well just guess a number instead.

No workout can estimate these data from HR.

HR only tells you how fast your heart is beating. It doesn't tell you what your stroke volume is, or your cardiac output.

There are a number of equations that use power data to estimate physiological metrics, these have some basis in fact (but are still prone to not being 100% accurate to establish say VO2max). That said, if you have power data, i'm not sure why you'd want to know VO2max

NeXXus

craker wrote:

Slightly O/T, can I use historical HR data to work out LT / V02 max?

I'm currently reading Joe Friel's excellent book on the subject, he has suggested some workouts to establish this. Also he's quite against MHR as it's so difficult (and painful) to measure.

I'm running a series of 5K events over the winter, I reckon that HR in the final 2/3 of the race (excluding the run in) should be there. For my purposes - as someone who looks at their HR monitor occasionally and wonders if the numbers mean anything significant - it will probably do.

Old data to work out something current. No

imposter2.0

craker wrote:

For my purposes - as someone who looks at their HR monitor occasionally and wonders if the numbers mean anything significant - it will probably do.

Which begs the question - why even bother wearing one of you don't know what the numbers mean?

Bill Black

For true max HR, use a fairly light weight and rep-out full back squats as rapidly as you are able. As you approach 2min. duration on these you should see a true max HR (assuming you don't pass out) although your on-bike max HR is likely to be lower given the squats use more muscles and have a pronounced eccentric aspect as well (cycling is almost completely concentric).
Best,
Bill Black

imposter2.0

Bill Black wrote:

For true max HR, use a fairly light weight and rep-out full back squats as rapidly as you are able.

Except that won't give you a 'true max HR' for cycling, will it.... :roll:

Bill Black

Imposter wrote:

Bill Black wrote:

For true max HR, use a fairly light weight and rep-out full back squats as rapidly as you are able.

Except that won't give you a 'true max HR' for cycling, will it.... :roll:

Perhaps if you read the next line of my post you would realize I said that -- there are good reasons to know absolute max HR within a cycling-training context. I sometimes forget the reasons why I quit posting here.
Best,
Bill Black

imposter2.0

Bill Black wrote:

Perhaps if you read the next line of my post you would realize I said that -- there are good reasons to know absolute max HR within a cycling-training context. I sometimes forget the reasons why I quit posting here.
Best,
Bill Black

I did read the next line - it made no difference. It is already understood that MHR differers between sports, so why bother posting how to establish your MHR in a different sport with no relation to cycling? Knowing your MHR in a different sport is unlikely to have any bearing on how you train with your cycle MHR.

Bill Black

Imposter wrote:

Bill Black wrote:

Perhaps if you read the next line of my post you would realize I said that -- there are good reasons to know absolute max HR within a cycling-training context. I sometimes forget the reasons why I quit posting here.
Best,
Bill Black

It is already understood that MHR differers between sports, so why bother posting how to establish your MHR in a different sport with no relation to cycling?

Your HR responds to neuromuscular demands for service -- as those are increased one's HR increases in response and your heart beomes stronger and increases its ejection fraction and, in cycling, typical HR will resume once that strenghtening occurs. However, knowing absolute Max HR can be helpful in crafting cycling-specific training in order to acomplish the foregoing. I'm done.
Best,
Bill Black

imposter2.0

To be fair, I've re-read your reply several times and I can't see how it answers my point. Being completely unaware of my MHR in swimming, running, etc has not been a drawback in training with MHR on a bike - as far as I know....

cougie

NeXXus wrote:

cougie wrote:

If you think about this - how can your Maximum Heart Rate be lower than the HR you've seen achieved many times ?

It is the Maximum figure you're after.....

Because the calculator used was wrong

Exactly - the calculation is rubbish. Its like calculating your weight and then weighing yourself. What would you go with - the calculation or the actual weight ?

NeXXus

cougie wrote:

NeXXus wrote:

cougie wrote:

If you think about this - how can your Maximum Heart Rate be lower than the HR you've seen achieved many times ?

It is the Maximum figure you're after.....

Because the calculator used was wrong

Exactly - the calculation is rubbish. Its like calculating your weight and then weighing yourself. What would you go with - the calculation or the actual weight ?

Actual weight, completely naked of course