Big drop in max HR over 2 years
Comments
-
Likewise. I don't think anyone should really be giving medical advice.
The 220-age thing does give some rough guidance on the "age" part of max HR decline but if you are miles off that and concerned best see a doctor, at least for peace of mind. It's one of those issues where, as a layman, you don't know what you don't know.
So to the OP and others, if you are satisfied that you just can't reach your current max HR rather than it having plummeted, I guess you are okay. Otherwise worth a quick question to a GP in my view.
For further reading, If you go over to Velonews and do a search there's been quite a few helpful articles on this general subject.0 -
You're not letting go of the 220 thing..First.Aspect said:Likewise. I don't think anyone should really be giving medical advice.
The 220-age thing does give some rough guidance on the "age" part of max HR decline but if you are miles off that and concerned best see a doctor, at least for peace of mind. It's one of those issues where, as a layman, you don't know what you don't know.
So to the OP and others, if you are satisfied that you just can't reach your current max HR rather than it having plummeted, I guess you are okay. Otherwise worth a quick question to a GP in my view.
For further reading, If you go over to Velonews and do a search there's been quite a few helpful articles on this general subject.
0 -
Like I say, useful guidance, as far as the "-age" part goes at least. About as useful as "1-2 beats per year can't remember where it's from but someone studied it innit".imposter2.0 said:
You're not letting go of the 220 thing..First.Aspect said:Likewise. I don't think anyone should really be giving medical advice.
The 220-age thing does give some rough guidance on the "age" part of max HR decline but if you are miles off that and concerned best see a doctor, at least for peace of mind. It's one of those issues where, as a layman, you don't know what you don't know.
So to the OP and others, if you are satisfied that you just can't reach your current max HR rather than it having plummeted, I guess you are okay. Otherwise worth a quick question to a GP in my view.
For further reading, If you go over to Velonews and do a search there's been quite a few helpful articles on this general subject.0 -
I've been out this morning specifically to ride to a section of road where I could do a 10 mile TT. 33 minutes to get to the start point of the TT and a 37 minute rde back so total of 1 hour 37 minutes total ride time. TT time was 27 mins 03 secs average speed 22.2 mph. HR = 153 bpm Ave 161 bpm Max HR during the 10 mile effort. I have an FTP of 291 ( adjusted -5% ) this 27 minute session showed my Power as Normalized 329 Ave 316 so by that I would say I've possibly improved my FTP slightly with the effort but still get no where near my Max HR.tonysj said:Some interesting comments above about Max HR.
My HR history with cycling is this.
December 2016 (aged 54 yrs ) started road/MTB cycling for pleasure and was reasonably fit already. Max HR was 182 bpm.
2017 cycled more and entered a few sportives. Max HR was 175 bpm on a long hard sportive.
2018 more cycling + sportives similar Max HR 175 bpm.
Since then I very rarely push to get my Max HR but on hard/fast/lengthy rides I don't get over 165 bpm aged 57 yrs.
I'm fit probably a little faster but don't get over low 160 bpm these days so it odes appear to have gone down or I'm not prepared to push myself to the absolute max!!
I tend not to worry too much about HR these days and concentrate more on Power produced.
I don't think I had much left but could have gone a little harder but only a little.
I'm happy to just accept I'm unlikely to get up near my Max HR for whatever reason..0 -
Er, the difference being that '220-age' is universally-regarded as inaccurate to the point of being irrelevant (by everyone except you, it seems), from a exercise physiology perspective.First.Aspect said:
Like I say, useful guidance, as far as the "-age" part goes at least. About as useful as "1-2 beats per year can't remember where it's from but someone studied it innit".imposter2.0 said:
You're not letting go of the 220 thing..First.Aspect said:Likewise. I don't think anyone should really be giving medical advice.
The 220-age thing does give some rough guidance on the "age" part of max HR decline but if you are miles off that and concerned best see a doctor, at least for peace of mind. It's one of those issues where, as a layman, you don't know what you don't know.
So to the OP and others, if you are satisfied that you just can't reach your current max HR rather than it having plummeted, I guess you are okay. Otherwise worth a quick question to a GP in my view.
For further reading, If you go over to Velonews and do a search there's been quite a few helpful articles on this general subject.
The rate of MHR reduction is, I suggested, about 1-2bpm per year. This has already been corroborated anecdotally by another poster on this thread. The fact that MHR does reduce with age is well-established - only the rate of reduction is in question. So feel free to come up with your own figure.
Like I said mate, you're having a shocker here - I'm embarrassed for you.0 -
The "whoosh" was that 220-age was also basically anecdotal - based on one clinician's experience. And essentially identical to what you said, whoosh. It's inaccurate, unless it isn't. Kind of like a stopped watch.imposter2.0 said:
Er, the difference being that '220-age' is universally-regarded as inaccurate to the point of being irrelevant (by everyone except you, it seems), from a exercise physiology perspective.First.Aspect said:
Like I say, useful guidance, as far as the "-age" part goes at least. About as useful as "1-2 beats per year can't remember where it's from but someone studied it innit".imposter2.0 said:
You're not letting go of the 220 thing..First.Aspect said:Likewise. I don't think anyone should really be giving medical advice.
The 220-age thing does give some rough guidance on the "age" part of max HR decline but if you are miles off that and concerned best see a doctor, at least for peace of mind. It's one of those issues where, as a layman, you don't know what you don't know.
So to the OP and others, if you are satisfied that you just can't reach your current max HR rather than it having plummeted, I guess you are okay. Otherwise worth a quick question to a GP in my view.
For further reading, If you go over to Velonews and do a search there's been quite a few helpful articles on this general subject.
The rate of MHR reduction is, I suggested, about 1-2bpm per year. This has already been corroborated anecdotally by another poster on this thread. The fact that MHR does reduce with age is well-established - only the rate of reduction is in question. So feel free to come up with your own figure.
Like I said mate, you're having a shocker here - I'm embarrassed for you.
Thing is, if you do a wee bit of reading, it's as accurate as anything else. For sure there are other, much more complex formulae that marginally more closely match the population data, but they are basically as useless as each other for predictive purposes.
All you can tell from something as crude as 220-age or any other "best fit" is whether you are roughly somewhere in the middle of the bell curve for your age. Or not. And that is all. If you pretend otherwise you are an idiot.
So if you think something odd might be going on, go see a doctor. Don't listen to some twat on an internet forum.0 -
You appear to be revelling in your own humiliation. Let it go...0
-
I feel completely humiliated.imposter2.0 said:You appear to be revelling in your own humiliation. Let it go...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3935487/0 -
You should. Did you actually read beyond the title?0
-
It says there are clinical uses for these estimates where measuring max HR is impracticable or impossible.
Well, I did find a few useful sources such as the Harvard Medical School, the British Heart Foundation and the NHS that still use 220-age. Again, for similar purposes. But what do I know.
Its a useful predictor, but if you think it is a "calculation" and are then upset because its only an estimate, it just means you didn't understand in the first place.
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/96880/1/96880.pdf
This is what I was looking for - if you look at Fig 2b you'll appreciate the futility of any of these "calculations". Table 3 is also interesting, because it shows the range of attempts that have been made. But the largest value of x (where x is the factor appended to age) in all of the formulae is 1.07. The lowest 0.48.
The conclusion is that none can be used to calculate things like VO2max, training ranges and so on.
There's nothing to substantiate "1-2 bpm a year" and certainly 5 a year seems high to me. But I'm a chemist, and like Imposter I have essentially no medical knowledge or understanding.
Based on my own experience OP, I still maintain that you are most likely just not hitting your max HR. It takes me about 25 mins on a rowing machine before my HR is high enough to sprint and actually access what I think my max HR is.
But rowing uses more muscle groups than cycling (particularly TTs,) and works the heart harder. On the bike I can only get within 2-3 bpm of max, and then only when I'm full gas out of the saddle at the end of a long climb. Again, recruiting more upper body muscles.
It is a shame that some people reduced the thread to school playground level, and I apologise if it became a bit too puerile, because its an interesting subject - at least for those of us getting a bit older and, like the OP, wondering whether the changes we feel are normal or not.0 -
A clinical use where, according to the study you linked to, the margin of error is up to 14bpm? That's roughly an entire training zone's worth of inaccuracy, if you are training by HR - so you go out to train in a target zone, and end up training in the zone above or below. Not sure what point you're trying to prove with this nonsense, but it really isn't working. In any case, whatever 'clinical' use that might have is utterly irrelevant in this context. It's wildly inaccurate for HR training - why not just accept it.First.Aspect said:It says there are clinical uses for these estimates where measuring max HR is impracticable or impossible.
As for your 'playground level' comment. Ironically, you were the first with the playground insults. If only you read what you typed, eh?
Like I said mate, this has not been your finest hour.
0 -
"He started it." Come now Imposter.
You scoffed at someone quoting 220-age, calling it "absolute nonsense". I politely replied saying it wasn't. Your premise seems to be either it is reliable and worthy of discussion, or it isn't. Which is quite simplistic.
In answer to your latest comment, "training zones" are neither clinical use nor relevant to the question of whether a ca. 10 bpm annual drop in max HR is normal.0 -
Using 220 - age is way off for me, it gives 20 + beats per minute less than actual.0
-
-23 bpm from recorded max HR for me.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Simply pointing out your hypocrisy, mate. You seem impervious to humiliation, so it's not a surprise to find that you're impervious to that as well...First.Aspect said:"He started it." Come now Imposter.
In the context of this thread and this discussion, it absolutely is nonsense. It's slightly bizarre to claim otherwise. But you're still clinging onto it, fair play.First.Aspect said:You scoffed at someone quoting 220-age, calling it "absolute nonsense". I politely replied saying it wasn't. Your premise seems to be either it is reliable and worthy of discussion, or it isn't. Which is quite simplistic.
Poor attempt at deflection. Training zones are a perfect example of how irrelevant it is to claim that 220 is a 'worthy' guide to HR. If I was you mate, I'd have quit long ago..First.Aspect said:In answer to your latest comment, "training zones" are neither clinical use nor relevant to the question of whether a ca. 10 bpm annual drop in max HR is normal.
0 -
diamonddog said:
Using 220 - age is way off for me, it gives 20 + beats per minute less than actual.
-18bpm for me..pblakeney said:-23 bpm from recorded max HR for me.
0 -
You do get that the original question was about a trend, right? Someone worried about their health?
I thought that was pretty clear from the title of the thread.
May I ask a question?
Are Harvard, the NHS and the UK heart Foundation all wrong to use the rule of thumb in their literature? If so why?
How about the long list of studies quoted in that review article? Are all those academic researchers engaged in a collosal folly like me?
Let's have an answer from someone other than Imposter. I just can reason with someone who answers a post that says "they are useful for predicting training zones" with "they are useful for predicting training zones, mate".0 -
The thread title has long since been irrelevant - ever since you claimed that 220-age was a valid metric.First.Aspect said:You do get that the original question was about a trend, right? Someone worried about their health?
I thought that was pretty clear from the title of the thread.
You'd have to ask them. Nothing changes the fact that 220-age is universally acknowledged as being irrelevant for establishing MHR. This is supposed to be a 'serious' training forum - not some clickbait article in 'Men's Health', ffs..First.Aspect said:May I ask a question?
Are Harvard, the NHS and the UK heart Foundation all wrong to use the rule of thumb in their literature? If so why?
How about the long list of studies quoted in that review article? Are all those academic researchers engaged in a collosal folly like me?
Check spelling here, as this doesn't make sense. Just to be clear though, in case you hadn't already got the message, 220-age is useless at establishing training zones. You might as well just pick a number. Or maybe you do...First.Aspect said:Let's have an answer from someone other than Imposter. I just can reason with someone who answers a post that says "they are useful for predicting training zones" with "they are useful for predicting training zones, mate".
0 -
Oh a serious training forum. Sorry. My mistake. Just serious athletes here, eh?imposter2.0 said:
The thread title has long since been irrelevant - ever since you claimed that 220-age was a valid metric.First.Aspect said:You do get that the original question was about a trend, right? Someone worried about their health?
I thought that was pretty clear from the title of the thread.
You'd have to ask them. Nothing changes the fact that 220-age is universally acknowledged as being irrelevant for establishing MHR. This is supposed to be a 'serious' training forum - not some clickbait article in 'Men's Health', ffs..First.Aspect said:May I ask a question?
Are Harvard, the NHS and the UK heart Foundation all wrong to use the rule of thumb in their literature? If so why?
How about the long list of studies quoted in that review article? Are all those academic researchers engaged in a collosal folly like me?
Check spelling here, as this doesn't make sense. Just to be clear though, in case you hadn't already got the message, 220-age is useless at establishing training zones. You might as well just pick a number. Or maybe you do...First.Aspect said:Let's have an answer from someone other than Imposter. I just can reason with someone who answers a post that says "they are useful for predicting training zones" with "they are useful for predicting training zones, mate".
Have you actually answered the OPs question, other to pull "1-2 bpm" out of your Uranus? Which doesn't seem to be correct, by the way, and might suggest to the OP that his huge max HR drop is more normal than it actually is.
I'm going to stick my neck out here. Are you one of those to3sers at the local club who confuses who is fastest with who is most intelligent, and who inexplicable knows everything about training, and tech, but despite being so awesome works in a mediocre job and really just bores the t1ts of people at the café stop?
0 -
As the original instigator of the "utter nonsense" post I hadn't relised that this was a "serious" training forum.
Chill your beans, life's too short.
However, talking to my missus, a qualified doctor, she reckons that an arbitary figure is used to give a general indication that professionals across many disciplines can work to. If it's wildly higher, or lower, it'll be flagged up as something that needs to be investigated further.
As cyclists, some of us far more serious than others, we are likely to have heart beats far wider apart than any median figures anyway. The 220-age figure is no more than a line in the sand.
If I'd known it was going to cause this much bickering I'd have ordered in more popcorn to consume while sitting on the sidelines.
I bid you good day, it's far, far too serious in this recess of the forum for my liking
2 -
Good God - GP agrees with F.A. shocker.
Its more fun in "Caption Competition" but you need to have a shred of wit down there, so its not for everyone.1 -
I think we can now add 'deliberately obtuse' to your list of achievements on this thread. It used to be a forum for 'serious' discussion - or it was until you turned it into an embarrassing clownshow.First.Aspect said:
Oh a serious training forum. Sorry. My mistake. Just serious athletes here, eh?
Have you actually answered the OPs question, other to pull "1-2 bpm" out of your Uranus? Which doesn't seem to be correct, by the way, and might suggest to the OP that his huge max HR drop is more normal than it actually is.
Was there a serious question in there, or just more petty insults?First.Aspect said:I'm going to stick my neck out here. Are you one of those to3sers at the local club who confuses who is fastest with who is most intelligent, and who inexplicable knows everything about training, and tech, but despite being so awesome works in a mediocre job and really just bores the t1ts of people at the café stop?
I think I've been pretty clear here - 220/age is not - and never has been - an accurate way of establishing HR max for anyone who takes HR training seriously. There are any number of studies which confirm this. The only valid way of establishing it is to test it. This is not new information, by the way - and I actually feel like I'm patronising you a little by having to explain it.
0 -
And yeah, I'm insulting you, because you've been at it for a while now mate.
Can you post on one of the grown up threads as well please so a few more of us can join in?0 -
What, you need some mates to back you up? Ironically, you were complaining about school playgrounds earlier...First.Aspect said:And yeah, I'm insulting you, because you've been at it for a while now mate.
Can you post on one of the grown up threads as well please so a few more of us can join in? 'Grown-ups' indeed....
When you start with the insults, you've kinda lost the argument. Like I said right at the start - which was clearly quite prophetic - you've got nothing.0 -
No,.I think you "lose" the argument at the correction of grammar stage.imposter2.0 said:
What, you need some mates to back you up? Ironically, you were complaining about school playgrounds earlier...First.Aspect said:And yeah, I'm insulting you, because you've been at it for a while now mate.
Can you post on one of the grown up threads as well please so a few more of us can join in? 'Grown-ups' indeed....
When you start with the insults, you've kinda lost the argument. Like I said right at the start - which was clearly quite prophetic - you've got nothing.
Still not sure why despite several research papers, Harvard the NHS etc and the fact that you seem to broadly agree, that I'm still wrong.
Useful guidance for clinical purposes. General age trend correct (answers OP) but not suitable for serious training people (which one cannot take too seriously).
But somehow still wrong.
High standards indeed.
What do serious training people do these days then?0 -
They mostly train with power. But if they train with HR, they will want a better reference than 220/age, which is why they will either use a ramp test, or use the highest number they've seen in competition as a starter.First.Aspect said:What do serious training people do these days then?
You seem to be confusing trained cyclists with the general sedentary population, many of whom get out of breath walking up the stairs - for which something like 220/age might be useful as a general reference, but nothing more. The other fella's GP missus earlier seemed to confirm that. The internet is awash with comments from people for whom 220 is wildly inaccurate - there are a few on this thread too. Like I said before, it has no business being taken seriously in a discussion on 'performance' HR.
Honestly, it's like you've never come across this issue before.
0 -
Power? Oh gosh really. That's revelatory. I hadn't heard.imposter2.0 said:
They mostly train with power. But if they train with HR, they will want a better reference than 220/age, which is why they will either use a ramp test, or use the highest number they've seen in competition as a starter.First.Aspect said:What do serious training people do these days then?
You seem to be confusing trained cyclists with the general sedentary population, many of whom get out of breath walking up the stairs - for which something like 220/age might be useful as a general reference, but nothing more. The other fella's GP missus earlier seemed to confirm that. The internet is awash with comments from people for whom 220 is wildly inaccurate - there are a few on this thread too. Like I said before, it has no business being taken seriously in a discussion on 'performance' HR.
Honestly, it's like you've never come across this issue before.
So again, the article I posted said there's no substitute to measuring Max HR. Which you didn't read obviously. But also concluded it was a useful metric for some purposes. Which you didn't read obviously.
So I'm baffled, truly, as to why you think I'm wrong.
Do you think ramp tests are new? Or did you just find out? I did one 20 years ago with my arm wrapped round an x-ray imager to detect the barium I was being injected with. It wasn't all that comfortable as I recall. But very cool to see your own heart beating in real time.
Anyhow I'm going to guess that my friends physiology PhD from 2001 was more advanced that the weekend warrior level now.
Most weekend warriors who take themselves too seriously will believe the VO2max measurement their Garmin spits out (clue - it flatters you, just like the mirrors in the changing room where you buy your fashionable clothing.. oh dear, didn't you know?)
But It must be accurate because it's got decimal points, right?0 -
You're babbling incomprehensibly now mate, so I'll leave you to it. My comments are here for all to see - and (sadly) so are yours.0
-
Are you afraid to answer direct questions?imposter2.0 said:You're babbling incomprehensibly now mate, so I'll leave you to it. My comments are here for all to see - and (sadly) so are yours.
Come on let's have an intellectual discussion here rather than bluster shall we?
Why am I and aforementioned institutions run by idiots? Why is a weekend warrior wannabe in a middle or lower income job, for whom cycling is the most special special thing about them, correct?
Show some substance in your argument.
"1-2 BPM a year, anecdotally. I can't remember where I read it."
This is all you've presented other than to denigrate several people smarter than you.
Oh and the epiphany that people now train with power.
God almighty. I nearly wet myself when I saw that. I thought, honestly, that you might actually say something about how the power data was used.
Not as funny as the "serious training forum" thing though.
Mmm. This is my serious face.
0 -
I’m 62 any my max heart rate is 178. When I was 52 it was 186. In both cases attained by max effort on a steep 15 minute hill. I’m no great athlete FTP only around 150 at 67 kg. So the 220-age does seem to be bollox. But the rate of slow down at 0.8 per year seems rightI want to climb hills so badly;
and I climb hills so badly0
