# Max heart rate



## Burtsc (Apr 15, 2010)

Hi I'm 51 years old and using the heart rate charts, most come up with a max heart rate of around 170. However today, at the end of a really hard group ride my HR peaked at 201. This was just after working really hard to get up a big hill. I would think it was a gliche, but it took several seconds for it to slowly climb down. Should I now consider this my max for training purposes ? Thanks for the insight.


----------



## Burtsc (Apr 15, 2010)

I think I found my answer in a thread below.


----------



## m4j2t (Jun 12, 2008)

Sorry to resurrect this. What did you end up doing? I have the same question. I'm 41.9 yrs old and can repeatedly achieve 192. Do I base my zones off of this number? The issue is that I've been using 192 for the past six years. It hasn't reduced at all. Every time I test at max effort I hit 192. The last time I did hit 192 I wasn't exerting much force at all, I was riding up on the thief whom had just stolen my wife's bike. The spike on my HRM had to be adrenaline induced, from the surge realizing I had found my stolen bike a couple hours after the crime.

I do search, and I do read all the old threads. I guess I would just like someone to tell me, that if I can repeatedly achieve 192 at age 41-42, I should use this number to base my zones off of.

Unrelated: The bike thief story is awesome. I like to write out stories, and this one deserves attention to detail. If you're wondering about it, it'll be in the general forum soon.


----------



## MarshallH1987 (Jun 17, 2009)

if you keep hitting 192 when pushing yourself to the max then it would seem 192 is your max. Unless you'd like to do an age calculation and just guess, measuring it is the best answer.


----------



## Alfonsina (Aug 26, 2012)

Base your zones off a LT test, like Friel uses. Then you don't have to have anyone tell you the question which they can't answer. Joe Friel - Determining your LTHR
Joe Friel - Quick Guide to Training With Heart Rate, Power and Pace


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

I am 50 and my maximum pulse rate is 197. Ignore the charts and formula's - we are all different. I do find that when I'm fitter It gets harder to hit that max pulse, plus at oour age, I reckon there's even an element of danger to the health!


----------



## m4j2t (Jun 12, 2008)

Thanks for all the replies. I wanted accuracy, so I did a Vo2 max test. You're correct we are all different and the conventional math equations weren't even close. I learned a lot about myself and how the low carb dieting I do affects my sports performance. It's an interesting and fun journey. I started working out with a specific plan according to the test results, and my fitness improved dramatically. I know what you mean about hitting the higher rates. I tweaked my back while sprinting on a hotel treadmill because I was trying to do a higher zone interval workout in while I was on the road. It took a month of wearing a back brace, and I'm almost back to normal. I'm riding again, and I have decided to stay away from the treadmill for high intensity stuff. I can achieve the same workout by cranking the eliptical resistance way up and using the arm poles-less impact.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

.....


----------



## rm -rf (Feb 27, 2006)

BikeLayne said:


> I had a physical just yesterday and passed with flying colors, I am 66. My EKG and labs are perfect. I decided to bring up cycling at or near 100% And he told me that I was to old for that and I would be risking an arrhythmia. He said keep it 90% or less. So I plan to use the *basic formula of 220 minus age*. Since I just ride for fun and fitness that will give me numbers to use. So today I thought I would try and climb a Cat 2 mountain near the house keeping my HR at 90% or less. Not only could I climb at that HR but I took 12 minutes off my STAVA best time. It was fun. I guess a better overall pace up the crazy climb. Anyway if your an older rider maybe you should talk with your Doctor about maximum HR determination. I would guess you might get the death speech as well.


The 220-age formula is way off for many riders. It tells me that my max is 160, and 90% of that is 144. But I often hit 160 on fast group rides, and 144 is my preferred heart rate for multi-hour-long efforts, not a "do not exceed" limit.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

.....


----------



## JasperL (Aug 21, 2011)

I have done the Friel test for LTHR, but I also download my rides to Training Peaks, and the program periodically updates my LTHR automatically when I do a long sustained effort. Sends me an email notifying that it went up a BPM or two. I don't base training off the number, but it is helpful to know whether I can sustain a given effort - above LTHR probably not.... 

The charts are also no help for me - my LTHR is what the chart tells me is my max - off by 25bpm or so.


----------



## sinker (Sep 4, 2009)

I read somewhere that the 220 minus your age formula is like picking your shoe size based on your age.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Yeah, it's like doing anything specific based on averages. I you happen to coincide with the average, great, but it's unlikely you do. So while a few people will have max HRs that are 220 minus their age, many more will be either above or below that.


----------



## the_gormandizer (May 12, 2006)

What I find interesting is that the formula implies ones max HR decreases with age. From what I can see, mine has not really changed from age 40+ to 50+. I wonder if this is only happens with old farts line me who train hard.


----------



## Mckdaddy (Feb 8, 2014)

I've been having metabolic assessments every month for the past few 5 months, then being assigned a workout for the next 4 weeks, re-testing after the 4 weeks, and seeing routine improvement in the expected the areas (VO2 max, resting HR, increased fat burn %, decreased avg HR during exercise, and a couple or three other metrics I can't recall). My max HR according to this rigorous and most recent test was 169, yet my outdoor rides routinely top out in the 180's. 

IDK


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

the_gormandizer said:


> What I find interesting is that the formula implies ones max HR decreases with age. From what I can see, mine has not really changed from age 40+ to 50+. I wonder if this is only happens with old farts line me who train hard.


I understand that true max rate is not trainable and declines inexorably with age. Hitting max is extremely hard and something I do only rarely, and it has declined about 10 pbm for me from 50 to 60 even though I've been riding much more and at greater effort at 60 than I did at 50.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

the_gormandizer said:


> What I find interesting is that the formula implies ones max HR decreases with age. From what I can see, mine has not really changed from age 40+ to 50+. I wonder if this is only happens with old farts line me who train hard.


The formula is a broad brush stroke of the general population, it doesn't account for individual genetics or what individuals are doing health/exercise.



Mckdaddy said:


> I've been having metabolic assessments every month for the past few 5 months, then being assigned a workout for the next 4 weeks, re-testing after the 4 weeks, and seeing routine improvement in the expected the areas (VO2 max, resting HR, increased fat burn %, decreased avg HR during exercise, and a couple or three other metrics I can't recall). My max HR according to this rigorous and most recent test was 169, yet my outdoor rides routinely top out in the 180's.
> IDK


Sounds as if the tests you are doing are flawed, maybe they aren't including enough warm up. I know in my case I can't get to my max heart-rate until I'm well into a ride (more than a hour).


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

I've seem 220 minus 64% of your age. .. That one works for me actually ... Better 220- age..


----------



## mambo (Jul 29, 2012)

In an earlier post, I stated that my max pulse was 197. My max pulse when I was racing as a pro triathlete in my prime was 201 for years. 

I came back to cycling a couple of years ago after spending a few years on surfing, women and debauchery. Basically having fun.

The maximum my pulse had hit in these last two years on my hardest efforts was 197.

I have just had a 2 month layoff due to an injury and started training last weekend.

Despite self promises to take it easy, I found myself unexpectedly with a 300 metre gap on our Sunday hammer ride so with 4km to go I hammered it. Today's ride ended with a 5% gradient 1.3km climb. I got caught by two riders with 300m to go and held on to their wheels and manage to "win" the sprint. When I looked down at the pulse meter it read 201. So it would appear that in the last 30 years my max pulse is still the same - I'm just a helluva lot slower though:mad2:

I know I was stupid. I know I deserved a heart attack.

Like I said in the earlier post, we are all different.


----------



## Srode (Aug 19, 2012)

spdntrxi said:


> I've seem 220 minus 64% of your age. .. That one works for me actually ... Better 220- age..


That's pretty close for me, much better than 200-age.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

Srode said:


> That's pretty close for me, much better than 200-age.


That's just coincidence. Of course such formula agree in some cases for people. That's because they are based on population averages, it stands to reason for those who happen to be close to the average of the distribution.

However Max HR formula also have a standard deviation of something like 10-15 beats per minute. That's quite a wide range. IOW more than 30% of people fall beyond that already fairly wide range.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

.....


----------



## David23 (Jun 5, 2012)

I'm 65 yrs old, I tried using the 220-age, (155) to determine max HR and it was fairly accurate when I was on Beta Blocker for HBP (for over 30 years), as it seemed to lower my HR. However, I've lost 25 lbs, am riding consistently, and my doc took me off BP meds entirely. Now my HR while riding averages in the mid 150s, is well into the high 160s working really hard, and I saw 187 as my max on a really tough climb just as I thought I would explode and fall off the bike. Now, the 220- 64% of age gives me 179 as max, and 90% of that is 161. Does this non-scientific information seem reasonable? Should I put 180 in my Strava profile for max HR and figure training zones from there? 
I was hoping coming off the BB meds would really bump up my ride performance, but honestly I haven't seen any real improvement in segment times or "ease" of efforts, the most dramatic change has been the increased HR during effort.


----------



## rideorglide (Dec 3, 2005)

David23 said:


> I'm 65 yrs old, I tried using the 220-age, (155) to determine max HR and it was fairly accurate when I was on Beta Blocker for HBP (for over 30 years), as it seemed to lower my HR. However, I've lost 25 lbs, am riding consistently, and my doc took me off BP meds entirely. Now my HR while riding averages in the mid 150s, is well into the high 160s working really hard, and I saw 187 as my max on a really tough climb just as I thought I would explode and fall off the bike. Now, the 220- 64% of age gives me 179 as max, and 90% of that is 161. Does this non-scientific information seem reasonable? Should I put 180 in my Strava profile for max HR and figure training zones from there?
> I was hoping coming off the BB meds would really bump up my ride performance, but honestly I haven't seen any real improvement in segment times or "ease" of efforts, the most dramatic change has been the increased HR during effort.


Ditto, except I feel a lot better internally, now, riding without 1st. metoprolol, and later cardizem/matzim, when the doc took me off 'em. Both kept that HR smooshed down at 120-130 max. Now just one hbp med: diovan.

Likewise I am trying to figure out where to set my max. There are a number of different methods look-uppable on the web, including one that's gender specific, even. But there's always going to be deviations from one person to another.


----------



## Mr645 (Jun 14, 2013)

Everyone is different. I am 47 and I have hit 170 peak, but typically I max out around 165. At that rate I quickly run out of breath. I can maintain 155 for 90 minutes and have spent 8 hrs in a day with a heart rate above 150 during a 12 hr ride. Doc says my heart is strong and as long as I feel comfortable, don't worry about it


----------



## Rich Gibson (Jul 26, 2013)

rm -rf said:


> The 220-age formula is way off for many riders. It tells me that my max is 160, and 90% of that is 144. But I often hit 160 on fast group rides, and 144 is my preferred heart rate for multi-hour-long efforts, not a "do not exceed" limit.


A more realistic formula (by my experience) is 220 - 65% times your age. Forgot where I read it but I found it on a Google search.
Rich


----------



## spdntrxi (Jul 25, 2013)

^ yeah I like that one better .. But I've also been higher for a sustained periods and felt ok. I more or less don't want to go over 185..


----------



## jrabenaldt (Mar 3, 2008)

Talked to my doc during my last physical while he was checking my EKG. I'm about to be 47 and have seen a max heart rate of 196 on 3 different monitors and have averaged 169 for 6-7 hours during several mountain bike races. 

This really concerned me at first but the doc and a heart specialist were not at all concerned after looking at my chart and we're actually quite impressed. Everyone's is different and mine can run higher than most. Am I cooked after those efforts? Absolutely. You need to find yours on your own and then figure out where you're comfortable. I know that I'm conversation comfortable up to 165.

I guess this doesn't really help with the calculations for a general baseline to be established.


----------



## flyfisherbob (Nov 21, 2011)

the_gormandizer said:


> What I find interesting is that the formula implies ones max HR decreases with age. From what I can see, mine has not really changed from age 40+ to 50+. I wonder if this is only happens with old farts line me who train hard.


Nailed it. Max heart rate is genetic, and does not change with age. As we age, we may find it more difficult to reach that rate, but your anaerobic threshold will only drift with training.


----------



## Mandeville (Oct 18, 2014)

Maximum heart rate is individual. The 220 minus your age and as others have said it an "average" guide or representation. But it is as accurate as saying all of us have a body temperature of 98.6. As we all know average body temperature varies a great deal among adults. 

It's true that as you age your maximum attainable heart rate will decrease. That decrease is an absolute certainty but what's not certain is the what that rate of decrease is. (You don't go down one beat per year for instance. It tends to decline in certain periods of time as you age.)

The only way to know your Max HR is to electronically measure it when you are maxed out several times on a climb that you gradually work into and are fully warmed up. Then just use that as your individual max HR for figuring out whatever it is you want to do regarding training or pace, etc. 

Actually for workouts up to a point you can learn to "feel" where you are in regards your zone per that "pounding" heart and the rate of breathing.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

.....


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

BikeLayne said:


> It I am climbing hard for a duration of time I can hit 165bpm. If I use the old method of 220-66(age) I get 154. I just go with the 165 number.


165 is likely not your max. Climb hard for a duration, than go all out till you're cross-eyed, nearly pass out and fall off the bike. That'll be close to your max. You can maintain max HR only for a very short time, usually less than a minute.


----------



## BikeLayne (Apr 4, 2014)

looigi said:


> 165 is likely not your max. Climb hard for a duration, than go all out till you're cross-eyed, nearly pass out and fall off the bike. That'll be close to your max. You can maintain max HR only for a very short time, usually less than a minute.


 I think I will skip the sudden death method and go with what I have. I am to old for all that.


----------



## swuzzlebubble (Aug 4, 2008)

So is "resting HR" your rate asleep in bed or sitting on the couch or (say) after you are all kitted up for a ride?


----------

