Big drop in max HR over 2 years

First.Aspect

kevin_stephens said:

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 right

Yup. But its more or less spot on for me. As are a couple of the other predictors, because I happen to be roughly the age where the predicted lines cross. Take a large enough sample and you'd merely replicate the findings of those studies.

Taken in context, though, these things have some use. Not a lot, but some. Which is why they are used at all. The 220-age persists because it is simple and doesn't require a calculator, and is therefore accessible.

The older I get, the more that having in initial sense of what I might or might not need to worry about is helpful. Calculating your training zones precisely isn't going to stop even someone who is serious from dropping dead from a heart problem.

I appreciate that the bickering is unedifying, but there are just some behaviours that I really can't stand.

legendary_27

kevin_stephens said:

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 right

It absolutely is bollox. I am 51 and my MHR is also 186, attained via ramp test. I train by heart rate, so if I used the 220- formula, at times I would be almost entire HR zones out.

bobmcstuff

I found this paper while looking for papers about MHR in different sports which seems relevant: https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200029010-00002

"...several studies report that HRmax is reduced following regular aerobic exercise by sedentary adults and endurance athletes, and can increase upon cessation of aerobic exercise."

Says that the effect is relatively small, 3-7%, but that's enough to make a reasonable difference to your HR zones if you look at those.

Ties in with my personal experience that it is much easier to get my heart rate really high when I am less fit, and maybe helps explain why I am having a lot more difficulty getting high HR numbers now I am doing PB power numbers.

parmos

noticed that recently my HR has dropped i have done more cycling this year (mixed MTB, Hybrid, road) than most years and i have dropped over a stone in weight as well .
my normal commutes now compared to last year have pretty much halved in my relative effort on strava my av HR was always around mid 130s now it barely gets out of the 110-120 range

i am 45 and 16st

First.Aspect

legendary_27 said:

kevin_stephens said:

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 right

It absolutely is bollox. I am 51 and my MHR is also 186, attained via ramp test. I train by heart rate, so if I used the 220- formula, at times I would be almost entire HR zones out.

You do understand what "estimate" means, right?

Is +/- 10% a good estimate, or a bad estimate? Or does it depend how you use it?

I estimate my car can go 325 miles on a tank. If I drive enthusiastically and it runs out after 300, was it a bad estimate?

legendary_27

First.Aspect said:

You do understand what "estimate" means, right?

Is +/- 10% a good estimate, or a bad estimate? Or does it depend how you use it?

I estimate my car can go 325 miles on a tank. If I drive enthusiastically and it runs out after 300, was it a bad estimate?

Your bizarre non sequitur aside, you do understand why estimation should be avoided when trying to set heart rate zones for training purposes ?

I sort of understand that you are still trying to save a bit of face by continuing with your line of argument, but I will respectfully agree to disagree. Feel free to have the last word. Stay safe.

First.Aspect

legendary_27 said:

First.Aspect said:

You do understand what "estimate" means, right?

Is +/- 10% a good estimate, or a bad estimate? Or does it depend how you use it?

I estimate my car can go 325 miles on a tank. If I drive enthusiastically and it runs out after 300, was it a bad estimate?

Your bizarre non sequitur aside, you do understand why estimation should be avoided when trying to set heart rate zones for training purposes ?

I sort of understand that you are still trying to save a bit of face by continuing with your line of argument, but I will respectfully agree to disagree. Feel free to have the last word. Stay safe.

Why is it bizarre? Using an estimate for something that needs measuring is bound to lead to disappointment.

There's a thread about measuring maxHR, if that would be helpful.

I do love the "saving face" and "humiliation" notion with respect to an internet forum. It really is serious over here in training, fitness and health, isn't it?

EDIT - Oh, and hello Imposter's second login, by the way.

imposter2.0

First.Aspect said:

EDIT - Oh, and hello Imposter's second login, by the way.

I've reported your comment above and if the mods ever respond, they will confirm that you are a liar. You really are a sad and desperate little fellow.

I only need one account to make you look ridiculous. Two would be unfair.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

legendary_27 said:

kevin_stephens said:

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 right

It absolutely is bollox. I am 51 and my MHR is also 186, attained via ramp test. I train by heart rate, so if I used the 220- formula, at times I would be almost entire HR zones out.

I hope you are setting your heart zones by estimated LTHR, rather than max heart rate.

Struggling to find it now, but sometime in the last ~3.5 years I've hit 194bpm, in the last week while aged ~46.5 I've hit 180-188 a few times.

LTHR is ~168bpm at the mo and https://cricklesorg.wordpress.com/ shows that over the last ~3.5 years, my LTHR estimate (very crudely what can be held for 20mins) has dropped from 175 to typically 160-165. Once in a while I while be able to do 20mins somewhere in the 165-175 ballpark, but it tends to very isolated events when I'm quite rested, whereas a few years ago I could hold that heartrate very frequently.

My current zones, according to Crickles are...
1 Z1 < 138
2 Z2 138 - 150
3 Z3 151 - 158
4 Z4 159 - 168
5 Z5 > 168

First.Aspect

imposter2.0 said:

First.Aspect said:

EDIT - Oh, and hello Imposter's second login, by the way.

I've reported your comment above and if the mods ever respond, they will confirm that you are a liar. You really are a sad and desperate little fellow.

I only need one account to make you look ridiculous. Two would be unfair.

You reported me to the mods? Have you actually read any other threads?

I deeply apologize for misconstruing the coincidence that out of all the threads in all the forum, someone's first post would be on this thread, that's they'd use similar syntax to another user to make a similar point, and that other user would notice my allegation even though it was made hours later when the thread had dropped off page 1.

I appreciate now that this is nothing short of slanderous and I apologise unreservedly.

imposter2.0

First.Aspect said:

You reported me to the mods?

You accused me of opening a new account, so I've asked the mods to confirm that you are just a bit of a desperate liar, that's all.

First.Aspect

You seem upset.

yellowv2

I'm not sure why you are continuing with this? You seem to be getting a bit obsessed.
Early in the thread you started the insults and although Imposter can sometimes be acerbic in his posts, it was unnecessary.
I think it might be an idea to take a deep breath and calm down.😉

First.Aspect

yellowv2 said:

I'm not sure why you are continuing with this? You seem to be getting a bit obsessed.
Early in the thread you started the insults and although Imposter can sometimes be acerbic in his posts, it was unnecessary.
I think it might be an idea to take a deep breath and calm down.😉

Well, you know, we are all working at home. Every day is the same, killing eve has finished....

shimanobottombracket

slowmart said:

Anyways back to the OP's question.

A solid winter of TrainerRoad, plenty of short but hard rides through the spring with a decent 4 hour ride on a Sunday, add quality calories and sleep and you'll be surprised as to what improvements you can gain with a little focus, informed approach and hard work.

You make it sound as easy as eating chocolate on Venus. Indeed getting fit at that age is going to be hard, especially when your willy isn't.

florerider

I went from 188 to 180 in 8 years, but I'm not sure what the error or repeatability is in ramp testing and I'm not going to do lots to find out. Have seen over 180 in interval training though and adjusted zones accordingly.

florerider

I would add, I think a better measure of fitness is the time you can spend in Z4 and 5 rather than max HR.

davebradswmb

I came back into regular cycling 6 years ago, I've been using a HR monitor for the past 4 years and I'm 59 now. Initially I thought my Max HR was 181 BPM, then I found I got up to 182 BPM 3 years ago, then last December it reached 184 BPM. It seems unlikely that my max HR has increased in reality, I've probably learnt to punish myself more on the bike.

All the formulas for estimating max HR only give a guide, my pal who is 5 years younger than me has a max HR of only 155 BPM, and we are of very similar ability. It only matters if you are using it to set HR zones for training, and even then there is some discussion about the differences between different people.

legendary_27

First.Aspect said:

EDIT - Oh, and hello Imposter's second login, by the way.

Apologies, I did promise you the last word, but I thought that I had better respond to this. I used to be legendary27, but due to issues with my old account, had to re-register, adding an underscore to the name. Hence the low post count.

Nicely done though. People will definitely take you more seriously if you start throwing out erroneous accusations against people who disagree with you !

legendary_27

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

I hope you are setting your heart zones by estimated LTHR, rather than max heart rate.

Mine is set by maximum heart rate. But having seen your post, I am now looking into testing again and setting via LTHR. Thanks for the heads up !

davebradswmb

legendary_27 said:

N0bodyOfTheGoat said:

I hope you are setting your heart zones by estimated LTHR, rather than max heart rate.

Mine is set by maximum heart rate. But having seen your post, I am now looking into testing again and setting via LTHR. Thanks for the heads up !

And thanks for commenting on this, I'd missed it scrolling past the playground taunts.

pippi_langsamer-2

190 for a 53 year old sounds exceptionally high to me?

iantr

aberdeen_lune said:

I think that’s pretty typical once your in your 50s. I am now in my mid fifties, I’m still pretty fit but my max heart rate has dropped from 187 a couple of years ago to around 174 now. I remember seeing a max of 209 when running up a hill when I was in my twenties,

I just accept it as just a fact of getting older. I know I am very fit and try to get my CV system as efficient as possible. However I know I can’t surge as hard as the young guns and my VO2 max is declining with age.

This is my experience too. I’m 53 this year, and my HRmax has fallen from the high 190s to the mid 180s in the last few years. I haven’t lost a similar proportion in power terms, so am not worried by it. Just age!

The only real impact has been the need to re-calibrate HR training zones which previously were stable/unchanged for many years.