Does a ramp test really give a good max HR reading?

KnightOfTheLongTights

Having just done a ramp test (pretty much as outlined by BC / Wattbike), it just doesn't feel to me like it is a good way to get a max HR reading.
I get the minute power thing, fine.
But if I was going to try and get a max HR reading I would go and find a long hill, about 10% gradient, and after warming up, do say six sprint intervals up it, of increasing effort, with the last absolutely all out - to get the max HR reading.
The key would be that the rest in between allows the legs to recover and hit that final maximum effort.
With a ramp test surely fatigue sets in over the minutes of steadily increasing effort, so that at the end no matter how much you are gritting your teeth, you are not really maxing out - because a certain amount of tiredness has already set in?
I'd've thought you only max out with a series of v intense sprint-like efforts.
Happy to be told otherwise, it's just instinctively how it feels to me.

Grill

Did you throw up or close to throwing up? If not you're doing it wrong. My max HR on a MAP test is still the highest I've seen in any type of riding situation.

KnightOfTheLongTights

Grill wrote:

Did you throw up or close to throwing up? If not you're doing it wrong. My max HR on a MAP test is still the highest I've seen in any type of riding situation.

No, my legs fatigued before I got to that stage.

Grill

Then you're not trying hard enough. You have to ride past that point.

KnightOfTheLongTights

well that's as may be

I still don't think it is the most efficient way to obtain max HR - it's 'easier' to max out on successive hill sprints than grinding steadily harder gears at the same cadence.

Grill

If you can't properly complete a ramp test how do you know the HR you achieve on climbs is max?

Not that any of this matters as HR isn't a very useful metric on its own...

BeaconRuth

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

With a ramp test surely fatigue sets in over the minutes of steadily increasing effort, so that at the end no matter how much you are gritting your teeth, you are not really maxing out - because a certain amount of tiredness has already set in?

A ramp test usually only takes a maximum of 10-15mins, which shouldn't be long enough to fatigue you, not least because it starts very easy and only gradually builds the intensity.

I'd've thought you only max out with a series of v intense sprint-like efforts. Happy to be told otherwise, it's just instinctively how it feels to me.

A very short effort is the least likely to produce a max HR because the HR takes time to rise after the brain has told the legs to make a hard effort. Everyone who has spent time using a HRM will be familiar with the 'lag' of the HR behind the effort they are making (both up and down).

But, also, a ramp test is often used to measure a rider's maximum aerobic power (MAP), in which case a sustained effort which requires aerobic work (rather than (mainly) anaerobic work that you do when sprinting) is what's required. You couldn't use sprint efforts to measure MAP.

BUT, all that said, it is very hard to achieve your maximum HR and people often find it easier to get their HR very high on a hill outside rather than in a lab.... everyone is different.

Ruth

wavefront

Agree with Grill, a ramp test will find your max, believe me! (if you're motivated and rested enough!! )

I did it as part of a vo2max test and got a max HR 4 bpm higher than I'd ever done before. Higher than I acheived in some hill climb comps where I'd gone all out and got new power bests for 1,2 and 5 mins, and collapased at the end.

KnightOfTheLongTights

OK, I reckon I must have still had a ride in my legs when i did it.
Motivation isn't normally a problem.

Grill

Keep a bucket close...

KnightOfTheLongTights

BeaconRuth wrote:

A very short effort is the least likely to produce a max HR because the HR takes time to rise after the brain has told the legs to make a hard effort. Everyone who has spent time using a HRM will be familiar with the 'lag' of the HR behind the effort they are making (both up and down).

Yes, thinking more of one-minute all-out efforts with maybe 30 second rests, rather than short sprints.
Thanks for your detailed answer, all of which made sense.
And likewise to Grill and wavefront.

taon24

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

OK, I reckon I must have still had a ride in my legs when i did it.
Motivation isn't normally a problem.

Alternatively you were doing it in a suboptimal gear, hence the legs giving out first. I suppose if you did an upper body intensive sport (Kayaking for example) you might be fit enough cardiovascularly that you'd struggle to drive your legs enough to keep up. Finally having a session already in the legs will make a difference.

KnightOfTheLongTights

taon24 wrote:

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

OK, I reckon I must have still had a ride in my legs when i did it.
Motivation isn't normally a problem.

Alternatively you were doing it in a suboptimal gear, hence the legs giving out first. I suppose if you did an upper body intensive sport (Kayaking for example) you might be fit enough cardiovascularly that you'd struggle to drive your legs enough to keep up. Finally having a session already in the legs will make a difference.

Well you start off in a fairly easy 'gear' because you start at a certain watt level, then the resistance or gear is increased - it is the cadence that remains unchanged.
I just found that my legs stopped being able to maintain that cadence before I felt blown out cardio-vascular-wise.
I suppose my cadence could have been sub-optimal - dunno if there is a recommended cadence for a ramp / MAP test or whether it is up to you? Presumably it is somewhere between 80 and 100 ...

taon24

Sorry, yeah i forgot that gear would change both resistance and cadence. I would have thought that optimal cadence would be in your suggested range throughout, but this might vary with sporting background.

Alex_Simmons/RST

It's a power test to ascertain MAP and is not a HRmax inducement test. Whether or not performing a MAP test results in HRmax is incidental and not particularly relevant.

Stating that a test designed for determining one thing is not suitable for finding out something else is, well, not exactly a revelation.

If you want to test for HRmax, then there are other protocols more suitable for that.

bahzob

The other variable in ramp tests both for HRmax and power is external motivation. I've found that self assessed ramp tests give lower values than those when someone is shouting in your ear to keep it going for another 10s.

Certainly the case for me. In my VO2 test max HR was 180bpm, I have never seen that anywhere else.

The same effect can apply to self tests. Hills are good for forcing out max numbers because they represent a tangible physical challenge, even more so if you are racing someone else. You can think you have given it your all at 100m to go but still somehow find the energy to get to the summit. Same on a ramp test and you may well have quit at that moment.

All this is interesting as it illustrates one often overlooked fact about training. Its not just about the legs but also the mind. A group of riders may have identical w/kg capacity but some will win while others don't just because they handle the pain better.

I would hazard a guess that in reality no-one knows their real max HR or power. Sadly ethical concerns prevent it, but you could run a test where you get someone to ride up a 10% gradient until they reach their "limit". Then release a rather hungry grizzly bear behind them. I would hypothesise they would see an entirely new set of PBs

KnightOfTheLongTights

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

It's a power test to ascertain MAP and is not a HRmax inducement test. Whether or not performing a MAP test results in HRmax is incidental and not particularly relevant.

Stating that a test designed for determining one thing is not suitable for finding out something else is, well, not exactly a revelation.

If you want to test for HRmax, then there are other protocols more suitable for that.

Well a ramp test has been pitched to me as a good way to find MHR alongside MAP – and a quick google around shows that it is pitched in that way elsewhere too.
If that actually isn’t the case then I’m not surprised, it backs up my instinct.

bahzob wrote:

The same effect can apply to self tests. Hills are good for forcing out max numbers because they represent a tangible physical challenge, even more so if you are racing someone else. You can think you have given it your all at 100m to go but still somehow find the energy to get to the summit. Same on a ramp test and you may well have quit at that moment.

Yeah this.

Alex_Simmons/RST

KnightOfTheLongTights wrote:

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

It's a power test to ascertain MAP and is not a HRmax inducement test. Whether or not performing a MAP test results in HRmax is incidental and not particularly relevant.

Stating that a test designed for determining one thing is not suitable for finding out something else is, well, not exactly a revelation.

If you want to test for HRmax, then there are other protocols more suitable for that.

Well a ramp test has been pitched to me as a good way to find MHR alongside MAP – and a quick google around shows that it is pitched in that way elsewhere too.
If that actually isn’t the case then I’m not surprised, it backs up my instinct.

Sure, but it depends on why you want to know your HR, or more importantly, what is it you are trying to achieve?

In doing a MAP test you'll find out your HR response to such an effort, and at some point along the way, probably moments after cracking, you'll hit the highest HR reading of the session. That may or may not be helpful to you. Whether that's your HRmax or not may not matter as it's the wrong question to ask to begin with.

If your purpose is to set some HR based training levels from percentages of HRmax, then it will be close enough to start with. Actual training will then tell you if such levels are right for you. If not then you simply adjust them accordingly.

There's a lot of slop in HR levels and HR response varies so much day to day I don't think absolute precision in knowing HRmax is all that important. As you train and begin to incorporate some very hard efforts (if that's suitable for you) then you'll soon find out. If such training isn't suitable for you, then the point is kind of moot.

cyco2

bahzob wrote:

I would hazard a guess that in reality no-one knows their real max HR or power. Sadly ethical concerns prevent it, but you could run a test where you get someone to ride up a 10% gradient until they reach their "limit". Then release a rather hungry grizzly bear behind them. I would hypothesise they would see an entirely new set of PBs

Must agree to that. I thought my tests for MHR where as good as I was going to get until I wore a HM in a cyclo-cross race. The same monitor for the test showed a 4 beat increase on tested MHR during the race. It was for all the race highly elevated, within 10% to 5%, so that going up a climb pushed it over the top. I thought that scary enough so willn't be wearing a HM again. :oops:

bahzob

cyco2 wrote:

Must agree to that. I thought my tests for MHR where as good as I was going to get until I wore a HM in a cyclo-cross race. The same monitor for the test showed a 4 beat increase on tested MHR during the race. It was for all the race highly elevated, within 10% to 5%, so that going up a climb pushed it over the top. I thought that scary enough so willn't be wearing a HM again. :oops:

Yes to this. One of the most famous experiments in psychology is "Pavlov's dog." There is an evil version of this where the subject receives an electric shock each time a neutral stimulus is presented. In time you can stop the shock, the stimulus itself provokes an adverse reaction as if a real shock had been administered.

One issue using Garmins with lots of numbers is that it can do similar. If you know your "max" HR /power is a given value then you will also know that it hurts. When you see these approaching on the screen then your brain reacts accordingly. It is innately conservative so sub-consciously, if not consciously, it will suggest you may want to stop and avoid the pain.

For this reason I reckon its best to try to ignore numbers as much as possible during max tests, unfortunately this can be difficult if self administering which is another reason why you may well see bigger numbers if the test is being conducted by someone else or your attention is being distracted by competition.

I'd hazard a guess that an associated issue is the "rounding" of FTP. I haven't done a statistical analysis but I would hypothesise that FTP values for self conducted tests are not evenly distributed but clustered around key values: multiples of 10. I'd take a punt this is especially so at 300W.

BeaconRuth

bahzob wrote:

I would hazard a guess that in reality no-one knows their real max HR or power. Sadly ethical concerns prevent it, but you could run a test where you get someone to ride up a 10% gradient until they reach their "limit". Then release a rather hungry grizzly bear behind them. I would hypothesise they would see an entirely new set of PBs

I've long thought that the whole idea of a fixed maxHR is a bit of a nonsense. If you get a different maximum using different tests and also get different maxima doing the same test on different days then maybe your maximum is just different on different days. OK, so some people have a maximum in the range 190-195bpm (say) and others have a maximum in the range 175-180bpm - and it is important to know roughly where yours is - but other than that I recommend not getting too hung up over it. There's always a bit of leeway on EVERYTHING to do with HR.

Ruth

KnightOfTheLongTights

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Sure, but it depends on why you want to know your HR, or more importantly, what is it you are trying to achieve?

In doing a MAP test you'll find out your HR response to such an effort, and at some point along the way, probably moments after cracking, you'll hit the highest HR reading of the session. That may or may not be helpful to you. Whether that's your HRmax or not may not matter as it's the wrong question to ask to begin with.

If your purpose is to set some HR based training levels from percentages of HRmax, then it will be close enough to start with. Actual training will then tell you if such levels are right for you. If not then you simply adjust them accordingly.

There's a lot of slop in HR levels and HR response varies so much day to day I don't think absolute precision in knowing HRmax is all that important. As you train and begin to incorporate some very hard efforts (if that's suitable for you) then you'll soon find out. If such training isn't suitable for you, then the point is kind of moot.

Yes absolutely, that all makes perfect sense.
Well in my case, obtaining an HR max estimate is really just to use the HR system at the indoor cycling place I patronise - where the zones are set as percentage of MHR.
I understand that one is generally better off setting zones using LTHR, but they don't at this gaff, so for the moment ...
I *think* I have a pretty decent estimate of my MHR now, based on my own experience and a test or two.
Of course, where one's lactate threshold HR is, is a different matter. Anecdotally, I think mine is quite high as a percentage of my max - around 90-91%.
But it's chicken and egg isn't it, because the reason I could have that impression is because my MHR has in the past been estimated too low.
That seems unlikely though because even at age 40 I had my MHR set at 198 and was able to ride for longish periods at 178-182.
It seems now my max has come down to about 188. (I'm 44, for what it's worth).
Anyway, thanks for your input one and all.

bahzob

PS to my post above. I'd also guess the same applies to speed around the 25mph mark.

I know it sounds a bit weird but I did one of my best rides by deliberately setting wheel circumference less than it actually was then pacing on speed. Even though consciously I knew the number was wrong my sub-conscious got sufficiently confused and thought I was taking it easy. This worked especially well towards the end of the event when thinking gets more and more fuzzy.

Not sure if it has been done but I would guess if subjects do a ramp test and are fed incorrect data about their power/HR then this will affect their results. Those told doing less than they really are will probably exceed their baseline performance.