# Max Heart Rate Q



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

OK...so nearly all of the formulas put me around 186 for a max heart rate. On many rides, my monitor has said my heart rate has hit 196.

When trying to find my training zones, what do I use? 186 or 196??


----------



## Daren (Jul 25, 2008)

Formulas are statistical analysis based around the bell curve of any given data and you are an outlier, as am I. I used the lactic threshhold estimate method where you ride a 30 minute TT and take your average HR for the LAST 20 minutes and use that and a chart (mine was in _The Cyclist Training Bible_) and get your Max HR and zones from there.

Or you could just use 196 :idea:


----------



## Andrea138 (Mar 10, 2008)

You use 196 as a max HR. 

Whether or not max HR is all that useful for setting training zones is another post...


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

Andrea138 said:


> You use 196 as a max HR.
> 
> Whether or not max HR is all that useful for setting training zones is another post...



Yeh..pretty frustrating trying to come up with an accurate and effective way to start a training regimen. I read some info on power meters and perceived effort training too. Lots and lots out there to digest!

I just want to eliminate "junk miles" and make my training more effective.


----------



## frpax (Feb 13, 2010)

196 should be used.

Do you know at what point you start going anaerobic?


----------



## BlurRoubaix (Jan 8, 2005)

*Borrow a friend's monitor to check*



rydbyk said:


> OK...so nearly all of the formulas put me around 186 for a max heart rate. On many rides, my monitor has said my heart rate has hit 196.
> 
> When trying to find my training zones, what do I use? 186 or 196??


You may also try borrowing a friend's HR monitor to double check you can actually achieve 196 or if you are getting bogus HR readings from your HRM. 
Or - if you set your training at a max HR of 196 and riding in zone 4 absolutely kills you - then you may be getting funny HR readings.
Other than that 196 it is!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

frpax said:


> 196 should be used.
> 
> Do you know at what point you start going anaerobic?


Whenever it is, your HR response will be far too slow to tell you.


When using max HR as a guide to setting of training levels, then use a known tested max HR value, not something based on a generic formula.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Last year I pegged my heart rate out at 201 at the age of 26. This year I've yet to truely max it out that far but I'm willing to bet I could still git 200. 

Based on formulas at my age I should be around 191-192 for a max. Last weekend I hit 198 5 times while mountain biking.

If you're in shape and have stayed in shape for many years chances are your max heart rate will be 5-10 beats higher than any formula.

If my max heart rate was really 191 I doubt I'd be able to hold a steady heart rate of 180 for 10 minutes... which I can do.


----------



## Ghost234 (Jun 1, 2010)

My max during a ramp test was 199, but my HRM has recorded it at 224 BPM. 

Formulas are nice for guessing what your max would be, but every persons biology is different. 

Heck I start to go anerobic at 185, and I can maintain that for about half an hour or more if I really want to.


----------



## SKIBUMM (Feb 26, 2010)

Being able to maintain a pace at AT is not unusual. Most people that are in shape can run at AT for quite a long time. All that it is saying is that at that point you are burning the wrong fuel form your body. I have ran sprint triathlons where my average HR is right at AT.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

SKIBUMM said:


> Being able to maintain a pace at AT is not unusual. Most people that are in shape can run at AT for quite a long time. All that it is saying is that at that point you are burning the wrong fuel form your body. I have ran sprint triathlons where my average HR is right at AT.


What's the "wrong fuel"?


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

Alex_Simmons/RST said:


> What's the "wrong fuel"?



Wouldn't that be muscle instead of fat? Isn't that what a person burns when they're anaerobic?


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

MaddSkillz said:


> Wouldn't that be muscle instead of fat? Isn't that what a person burns when they're anaerobic?


No, glycogen.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Our bodies have different types of fuel.. Training or working out under threshold you use carbs and fat for energy.. train above your threshold and you burn energy stored in your muscles for just that purpose. Over time you can build up those reserves but you can never run indefinitely on them. 

I believe I said that right?!


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Our bodies have different types of fuel.. Training or working out under threshold you use carbs and fat for energy.. train above your threshold and you burn energy stored in your muscles for just that purpose. Over time you can build up those reserves but you can never run indefinitely on them.
> 
> I believe I said that right?!


The more intense the effort level (relative to threshold or relative to our maximal rate of O2 utilisation), the greater the proportion of our energy is derived from our glycogen (from CHO) stores, primarily available as stores within our muscles and also available from the liver.

When going very hard, like hard tempo/threshold, then we have enough glycogen stores (provided we are not depleted to start with) to last at that pace for ~ 90-minutes give or take.

We can of course top up glycogen stores while riding, but never at the same rate that we are capable of using it.

Here's a chart showing the relative proportions of CHO and FFA used at different intensity levels:










We have around 80 times more energy stores as fat than we do as glycogen.

What we don't typically do is "burn" muscle protein itself (as was suggested before), although that is in fact possible, it requires us to be exceptionally depleted.

What fuel substrate we utilise is also significantly affected by our diet. We "burn" what we eat. e.g. eat a high fat diet and you'll metabolise proportionally more fat when training (you'll probably go slower as well).


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Hence why most early season training programs suggest that you do lots of slower easy miles in the "fat burning zone". Training your body to burn fat efficiently will help you ride further saving your carbs and glycogen for when needed.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Hence why most early season training programs suggest that you do lots of slower easy miles in the "fat burning zone". Training your body to burn fat efficiently will help you ride further saving your carbs and glycogen for when needed.


Except that it's a load of bunkum. The body doesn't need to be taught how to burn fat. It's had millions years of evolution to work that out already. And you certainly can't teach it to use the fuel more efficiently, it's a chemical reaction that is fixed, unless you want to start altering the laws of thermodynamics.

Indeed, if you want to increase the proportion of fats used as fuel at any given absolute or relative intensity level, what's most needed is training to lift one's threshold power. 

The use of FFA as a fuel is a wholly aerobic process and it's use is limited by the state of our aerobic fitness. IOW it's working on aerobic metabolic limiters that will see such improvements in FFA utilsation.

Lots of tooling about at low intensities doesn't cut it. Ironically (or perhaps paradoxically for some) it is the strategic inclusion of efforts at higher aerobic intensities up to and including those that induce a state of VO2 max, which all but solely rely on glycogen as a fuel, that are required in order to improve our FFA utilisation ratio at lower (sub-threshold) intensities.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM (Mar 7, 2008)

Interesting.. I see what you're saying about evolution and it makes sense.

Why do most training plans include the 6 weeks or so of easy effort as a base?


I'm a big fan of cycling the efforts every few days and doing controlled intervals. Most of the reading I've done as I'm sure most have suggest that max effort intervals are the way to go.


Reading a story about that guy that won the RAAM and lowered his total time drastically by doing intervals instead of 10 hour days was pretty convincing stuff.


----------



## mjengstrom (Apr 20, 2009)

> What we don't typically do is "burn" muscle protein itself (as was suggested before), although that is in fact possible, it requires us to be exceptionally depleted.


How do you know if this is happening? Is this related to when people sometimes smell ammonia after/during a workout?

Very informative thread though.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

mjengstrom said:


> How do you know if this is happening? Is this related to when people sometimes smell ammonia after/during a workout?
> 
> Very informative thread though.


Of the various nutrients we ingest, only CHO, fats and proteins can yield energy for muscular exercise. Alcohol can't be used directly or indirectly by the muscle.

CHO, fat & protein don't contribute equally (with the FFA/CHO mix being predominant as described earlier).

The fact that nitrogen excretion is not significantly increased during muscular exercise in the fed individual is taken that protein is not used as a fuel to any appreciable extent as long as the energy supply is adequate. Proteins are almost exclusively used to replace parts of cells being broken down, and normally protein is only a very minor source of energy during exercise.

It's probably nitrogen excretion by the kidneys that's giving a false impression of protein "cannibalism". Indeed there are mechanisms to inhibit protein being consumed during exercise.


----------



## Alex_Simmons/RST (Jan 12, 2008)

ZoSoSwiM said:


> Why do most training plans include the 6 weeks or so of easy effort as a base?


Probably because they are off the shelf plans and play it safe.

It makes sense if you have been doing no riding for a while, perhaps returning after long layoff or injury, as you need to make sure all the mechanisms, connective tissues, backside etc are given a chance to adapt to being back on the bike. But it doesn't mean riding has to be dominated by "easy" or recovery levels. And the duration of a "prep phase" can be shorter or longer depending on the individual. I wouldn't be putting hard threshold work into the mix early on either, and rides at >75% Max HR still have an excellent impact to fitness when you are coming from a low starting level.


----------



## zriggle (Apr 16, 2008)

My HRmax is 211 (seen it happen cresting a climb). I’m not nine years old.


----------

