# Maximum heart rate



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

I take a spin class every Tuesday and our training is heart rate based. I'm 45 years old and, based upon the 220-age standard, my maximum HR should be in the 175 range. Now I know this is just a guideline but I assumed I would be somewhere in that ballpark. However, my HR touches 200 during very hard, all-out efforts, which really surprised me. Is the 220-age standard really just a useless calculation or is there some validity there? If I'm trying to train in certain zones I'd be way off using that method.

Cheers!
Kevin


----------



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

... as you've noted, the 220-age is a lay method which, while accuate enuff for many, may not fit all or folks with other issues... when is the last time you had an EKG or stress test? Has your doc ok'd you for the spin class or other strenuous activities? Do you have any other mitigating conditions? A chat with your doc might be more in order...

There are more accurate ways for individuals to hone in on their own rates but they're usually not quite as cost effective.


----------



## ParadigmDawg (Aug 2, 2012)

This method does not take into account your fitness level or inherited genes, which can make your true maximum heart rate 10 to 30 beats per minute higher or lower than the age-predicted number.

An exercise tolerance or stress test is more accurate but cost money.

I believe the Karvonen Formula is a little more accurate.

You reach 200 in your class so we know that your max HR is at least 200 so I would build my zones around that. 

I just gathered a lot of data from my Garmin and used an average of the highest achieved HR. Maybe not entirely accurate, but close enough for me.


----------



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

Akirasho said:


> ... as you've noted, the 220-age is a lay method which, while accuate enuff for many, may not fit all or folks with other issues... when is the last time you had an EKG or stress test?


I had a stress test 2 years ago along with an EKG and echocardiogram - all good.

I was just surprised that this widely accepted method would be so far off in my case.

Thanks.


----------



## Rogus (Nov 10, 2010)

It's often not accurate, because no set formula could possibaly work for everyone. It's even further off for me at 59 with a max HR of 193. Some in my club have an even greater difference.


----------



## Schneiderguy (Jan 9, 2005)

The formula is not accurate so forget it. Work off 200 bpm as your max for cycling unless you are able to reach a higher number cycling. For each sport your max HR will be different. The more muscles you engage the higher your HR will be. Additionally the more fit your cycling leg muscles become the higher they can drive your HR. But don't confuse comparing one person's max to another as a sign of fitness. Big hearts beat slower than smaller hearts resulting in lower and higher HR max. Sometimes during the TdF certain racers HRs are shown and the HRs will vary a lot even though they are positioned similarly in the peleton.


----------



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

Schneiderguy said:


> But don't confuse comparing one person's max to another as a sign of fitness.


I gauge my fitness on my ability to recover from the effort that produced that maximum heart rate. Interesting comments about smaller vs. larger hearts.

Cheers!
K


----------



## mtor (Mar 1, 2007)

Rogus said:


> It's often not accurate, because no set formula could possibaly work for everyone. It's even further off for me at 59 with a max HR of 193. Some in my club have an even greater difference.


This is true


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Far off*



Skinner222 said:


> I was just surprised that this widely accepted method would be so far off in my case.


If you go back to the original data on which this "formula" was based you will find that one standard deviation is 11 bpm. IOW, 50% of the population will have a max HR in a 22 bpm range around the predicted 220-age. From the standpoint of predicting your HR for an exercise program the formula is useless.


----------



## kmunny19 (Aug 13, 2008)

how is your HR being measured during the class? Is there a possibility of an inaccurate measure? I really have no idea if HRMs that exercise machines have on them are likely to be accurate or not. I'd think it would be easy enough to make them work well, but I'd be interested to hear any knowledge others have.

that said, the above comments about the 220 formula ring true in practice for most, that it may give you a ballpark idea, or maybe not even that good.


----------



## dcorn (Sep 1, 2011)

I'm 27 and I consistently hit over 200 bpm on my rides. Last week, going up the hill near my house and the end of my ride, I sustained a HR of 199+ for at least a minute straight. Wasn't working that hard either. Guess it's pretty close in my case since I'm younger, but damn I didn't think it was supposed to beat that fast lol.


----------



## Sean.B (Jul 20, 2012)

Damn, Im 23 and max heart rate during cycling is 188, and I had 300mg of caffeine before that ride. I havent checked it in a couple of weeks, but resting heart rate was 43.


----------



## Alfonsina (Aug 26, 2012)

I would also double check your HRM for accuracy, and the Karvonen Formula seems a better bet for real vs spin info, knowing your resting HR and recovery times would be useful for you, if you are not fit and maybe overweight then a spin class could get you into a high HR, once you are fitter and improve cardiovascular performance things shift. I am 47 (f) and my max HR might now be 165 if I am on a 14% or more hill climb outside, or running faster than I like, in spin it is hard to get to that high an effort because I control the hill LOL. If my HR shows an anomaly like over 180 then I know it is a HRM issue rather than my impending death. my resting rate is about 60.


----------



## shoot summ (Oct 1, 2012)

My Polar RS100 occasionally reads up to 200 when I am really pushing, I know for a fact it is wrong as my typical fully exerted heart rate is 160-170(51 years old).

I would double check your hrm before you get to concerned.


----------



## ddimick (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm 41 and max out at 197. My doctor said not to worry about it unless it varies more than 15% from the generic formulas.


----------



## Juzzy004 (Mar 8, 2012)

ddimick said:


> I'm 41 and max out at 197. My doctor said not to worry about it unless it varies more than 15% from the generic formulas.


I too am 41 and can manage a HR maximum of 198 at times. I also gauge my fitness on the ability to recover from these bursts and how quickly I can bring my HR back down.

I'd recommend getting the ticker checked out every 12 months.


----------



## Pitts Pilot (Dec 5, 2011)

Your maximum heart rate is the maximum rate you can get it to beat. Finding out where that is can be painful (and dangerous for some folks.) The "formula" is certainly well off for me. Do a half hour warm up - pick the most serious hill around and go as hard as you can for several minutes until you vomit - that is your maximum heart rate. Oh - consult your doctor first, of course.

I'm 45 years old and the max I've hit recently is 195 bpm. Max heart rate doesn't really change that much with your physical fitness, interestingly - it's more of an innate thing.


----------



## Skinner222 (Aug 31, 2012)

I actually did speak (via email) with my doctor yesterday. I told him basically what I said in my first post. His reply was to "keep your heart rate below 180." I thought that was a fairly vague statement. No reasons, no justifications, just keep it below 180. I replied and asked his reason for this statement and he replied that "just because I can get it to 200 doesn't mean I should. It's like running your car at red line." Well, cars can be run at red line and beyond, but not for extended periods of time. It's not like I am working at 200 bpm all the time. I couldn't maintain that for very long anyhow. For the most part I'm already following his advice. Workouts are generally in the 140 to 180 range. I only see 200 after a very strenuous effort.


----------



## Akirasho (Jan 27, 2004)

Skinner222 said:


> I replied and asked his reason for this statement and he replied that "just because I can get it to 200 doesn't mean I should. It's like running your car at red line." that for very long anyhow.


... for some reason in our modern world, we've grown accustomed to "absolutes". We want to be told how to do something and then, without fail, have the expected results (lose 10 pounds in five days with only 5 minutes of thighmaster a day!!!). Truth seems to be that outside of math and physics (not including quantum), there are few things so black and white. Shades.

I remember hitting 200 during my first stress test (back in my early thirties) and the look on the tester's faces (I was in for a cardiac arrythmia that is "normal" for me). Today, at 57, I can barely get above 166 no matter what I do (or is done to me)!


----------



## limba (Mar 10, 2004)

I haven't worn a heart monitor in years. Maybe I'll put it on today. My old max was 207. That's accurate too, I've worn many different monitors and got the same max number. I'm 43.

Edit: I put on my monitor and hit my local hill. I got up to 190. So if I was motivated/chasing someone/being chased I'd definitely be at least 10 beats higher.


----------



## drussell (Aug 6, 2010)

Pitts Pilot said:


> Your maximum heart rate is the maximum rate you can get it to beat. Finding out where that is can be painful (and dangerous for some folks.) The "formula" is certainly well off for me. Do a half hour warm up - pick the most serious hill around and go as hard as you can for several minutes until you vomit - that is your maximum heart rate. Oh - consult your doctor first, of course.
> 
> I'm 45 years old and the max I've hit recently is 195 bpm. Max heart rate doesn't really change that much with your physical fitness, interestingly - it's more of an innate thing.


This is about right. Your max shouldn't vary from workout to workout - it's an upper limit, can generally only be maintained for a few seconds, and if you're cognizant enough to read it off of your computer while you're on the bike (and not veer all over the road or fall over), you're not even close to it. I've hit 197 once doing what Pitts described above. It sucked. I only found out the number once I downloaded the data when I got home. That's what I've put into the spot in my computer (or maybe just my tracking software?) where it asks for it. Generally, you're better off doing a lactate threshold HR test to set up your HR zones (the test is easy to set up on your own with no special equipment - google it, or read up on it in Friel's Cyclists Training Bible).


----------



## Squidward (Dec 18, 2005)

I stopped wearing a HRM three or four years ago. Back then I was seeing peak HR of about 220BPM at 42-43 years of age. I haven't worn a HRM since then, but, I don't think much has changed. I asked my doctor about this and he told me that as long as I don't feel chest pain that I'm fine.


----------



## DocRogers (Feb 16, 2006)

I hit 200 a few times when I was racing (stopped at age 41 with the birth of my daughter). Don't use a monitor anymore, but I'd be interested to see what my max is now.


----------



## MerlinAma (Oct 11, 2005)

Heart rate is a little like an engine. You can have one with little cylinders and run high rpm or big cylinders at lower rpm.
Comparing yours to others even your own age is somewhat meaningless.
And formulas are a rough estimate at best.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

ParadigmDawg said:


> This method does not take into account your fitness level .


Actually max HR has nothing to do with fitness level. It's just your hearts ability to work. People often confuse max with resting or the ability to recover, which are indicators of fitness


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Pitts Pilot said:


> Max heart rate doesn't really change that much with your physical fitness, interestingly - it's more of an innate thing.


When I first started cycling my highest observed max was 184... and I did some very rigorous cough-up-a-lung type efforts. Over the span of a year as I continued to train the number gradually crept up and peaked at 201. Pretty big overall shift. Then for no particular reason it started to slowly go back down. So far this year it has varied from 187 to 193 depending on the amount of recovery I've had.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Training change*



Cableguy said:


> When I first started cycling my highest observed max was 184... and I did some very rigorous cough-up-a-lung type efforts. Over the span of a year as I continued to train the number gradually crept up and peaked at 201. Pretty big overall shift. Then for no particular reason it started to slowly go back down. So far this year it has varied from 187 to 193 depending on the amount of recovery I've had.


You did not train your max HR to the higher number. You learned how to get the most out of your body when riding the bike and probably also learned how to suffer.


----------



## Blue CheeseHead (Jul 14, 2008)

I have found that specific "rule" of age to heartrate to be BS. One of my riding partners is 2 weeks younger than me. (49 years old) My heartrate maxes out at 193 +/-. His maxes out at about 175.

Now max heartrate decreasing with age may be true, but where it starts and finishes depends on the individual.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

Kerry Irons said:


> You did not train your max HR to the higher number. *[1]*You learned how to get the most out of your body when riding the bike and *[2]*probably also learned how to suffer.


Not sure about the first point. What does the "to get the most of your body" part entail and how long does that typically take? In my case it would have taken a *year* to slowly go from 184 to 201. And if that really is the case, what do you figure caused it to gradually go back down to the current 187-193 range? I am *significantly* faster than when it was 201 about a year and a half ago. 

The second point, about learning to suffer, not sure about that one either. I pushed myself harder when I first started out, stupidly hard. I was too optimistic and naive. I did 2-3 all out ~17minute TTs each week, and each one I rode like my life depended on it... was pretty stupid. I've since learned to dial it back and spread out the intensity more... so if anything I've learned to suffer less. Most of the hardest efforts (in terms suffering) I've done were during my first year on the bike.


----------



## MPov (Oct 22, 2010)

I must be on the slow side. I am 49 and rarely see anything above 175 on my HRM.


----------



## drussell (Aug 6, 2010)

Cableguy said:


> Not sure about the first point. What does the "to get the most of your body" part entail and how long does that typically take? In my case it would have taken a *year* to slowly go from 184 to 201. And if that really is the case, what do you figure caused it to gradually go back down to the current 187-193 range? I am *significantly* faster than when it was 201 about a year and a half ago.
> 
> The second point, about learning to suffer, not sure about that one either. I pushed myself harder when I first started out, stupidly hard. I was too optimistic and naive. I did 2-3 all out ~17minute TTs each week, and each one I rode like my life depended on it... was pretty stupid. I've since learned to dial it back and spread out the intensity more... so if anything I've learned to suffer less. Most of the hardest efforts (in terms suffering) I've done were during my first year on the bike.


Hard efforts, even ones like the TTs you're describing, are pretty unlikely to show you your max HR. It will be high, yes. Quite high. But not max. You can hold a (very) high HR for 17 minutes, get off the bike and be dead tired and a little wobbly, but still functional. Your max HR lasts for a few seconds, and when you stop after the effort put in to get to it, people passing by on the street will either turn away because they don't want to get involved, or asking you if you need an ambulance - you won't look good and will be sucking wind like nobody's business. I'm going to surmise your true max is still up around the 201-ish level.

Ultimately though, max HR is not very useful for much. Yes you can set HR ranges (40%, 60%, etc) based on it, but per my earlier post, you're much better off doing a LTHR test to set your target zones for any training purposes (in lieu of a power meter). THAT number will change depending on your fitness level.

Max HR isn't really a number you need to chase.


----------



## Cableguy (Jun 6, 2010)

drussell said:


> Hard efforts, even ones like the TTs you're describing, are pretty unlikely to show you your max HR. It will be high, yes. Quite high. But not max.


I don't believe I ever actually saw 201 with just a straight up sprint. I only saw 201 a few times, and I'm pretty sure it was only at the end of a drawn out TT like effort. Towards the end of a drawn out effort, if you're really going for it, you begin to ramp up the relative effort more and more until finally towards the end you're "sprinting" the best you can. 

I should note that I'm aware HR monitors sometimes report bogus numbers, but I always miticulously verify peak values by looking at it in context of the the surrounding data (both power and HR) as well as my recollection of what was happening at the time.



drussell said:


> I'm going to surmise your true max is still up around the 201-ish level.


So I take it you don't have confidence in the legitimacy of the changes of my HR peaks over the years. Very understandable. Just keep in mind the results I'm summarizing are over the span of years and aside from gradual changes in peak values (i.e. moving up or down 1-2 in a month) were very consistent and repeatable. So when you tell me I can achieve a HR of 201 now with about the same level of effort as before when I was still seeing 201, it's kind of funny


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*HR and speed*



MPov said:


> I must be on the slow side. I am 49 and rarely see anything above 175 on my HRM.


Your HR is NOT a predictor of speed or athletic performance. Two people can put out the same amount of power and have HRs that are 30 bpm different. Everbody wants to get into a measuring contest with HR but it is not meaningful.


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

Cableguy said:


> Not sure about the first point. What does the "to get the most of your body" part entail and how long does that typically take? In my case it would have taken a *year* to slowly go from 184 to 201. And if that really is the case, what do you figure caused it to gradually go back down to the current 187-193 range? I am *significantly* faster than when it was 201 about a year and a half ago.
> 
> The second point, about learning to suffer, not sure about that one either. I pushed myself harder when I first started out, stupidly hard. I was too optimistic and naive. I did 2-3 all out ~17minute TTs each week, and each one I rode like my life depended on it... was pretty stupid. I've since learned to dial it back and spread out the intensity more... so if anything I've learned to suffer less. Most of the hardest efforts (in terms suffering) I've done were during my first year on the bike.


Actually you can't train to increase your max heart rate. I think what Kerry means is when you train hard, you learned how to suffer and work hard. So you likely discovered what your true max is - it was more than you realized.

As far as it dropping some, that's quite common once you get really fit. Your blood flow increases from a stronger heart that doesn't have to work as hard for the same overall effort. In other words, the volume increases so the rate can be slightly less.


----------



## Oasisbill (Jan 15, 2011)

I have a friend who can't get his heart rate much above 120! He's incredibly fit and about 50 years old. He has seen a doctor about it too.. His resting is around 60....


----------



## MatthieuS (Nov 16, 2012)

Me: 185. 23 years old. ;(


----------



## sadisticnoob (Dec 6, 2009)

228 23 years old


----------



## Tldag3 (Jul 24, 2012)

I am in the same boat, I am 45 or 46 (I forget)

I use 220 - (0.7 * age), which I read from a book. This puts me at 176 for a calculated max, though I see 180's when cycling. There is (and probably should be for most) a difference between max calculated and actual max HR. How do you feel when you reach your actual max?

Bob


----------



## mberthia (Jun 5, 2012)

Tldag3 said:


> I am in the same boat, I am 45 or 46 (I forget)
> 
> I use 220 - (0.7 * age), which I read from a book. This puts me at 176 for a calculated max, though I see 180's when cycling. There is (and probably should be for most) a difference between max calculated and actual max HR. How do you feel when you reach your actual max?
> 
> Bob


Those numbers don't work out to 176. 220 - (0.7 * 45) = 188 bpm


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

mberthia said:


> Those numbers don't work out to 176. 220 - (0.7 * 45) = 188 bpm


What do you expect from someone that can't remember their age?


----------



## Tldag3 (Jul 24, 2012)

mberthia said:


> Those numbers don't work out to 176. 220 - (0.7 * 45) = 188 bpm


Maximum Heart Rate Calculator

I might have used this one...

I am 46, just dont like to say that. In my mind I am still 20-something.

The numbers I stated still make a point, my calculated max was in the 170's and on hard bike rides I get into the 180's

Thanks,
Bob


----------



## stanseven (Nov 9, 2011)

That's a lot like me Bob. When I turned fifty, and for a couple years afterwards, I couldn't say 50 without stuttering. I didn't realize why until a few years later. That probably explained why I also brought a Corvette one day impulse style a few days around that birthday.


----------



## Tldag3 (Jul 24, 2012)

stanseven said:


> That's a lot like me Bob. When I turned fifty, and for a couple years afterwards, I couldn't say 50 without stuttering. I didn't realize why until a few years later. That probably explained why I also brought a Corvette one day impulse style a few days around that birthday.



:thumbsup:


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

> Is the 220-age standard really just a useless calculation


Yes.



> or is there some validity there?


It's an average across a population with a standard deviation of 12. There's a 34% chance your maximum is somewhere between 175 and 187, 14% 187-199, and 2% 199-211.

Obviously yours is somewhere north of 200.



> If I'm trying to train in certain zones I'd be way off using that method.


Maximum heart rate is useless for setting zones even if you know your real maximum since lactate threshold varies as a fraction of it based on genetics and training.

You need to calibrate your zones against efforts sustainable for a time period that exceeds your anaerobic work capacity and the next limit which is where your body makes lactic acid faster than it can get rid of it which is about the effort people in good shape can sustain when very motivated and pacing ideally (it's not pleasant). Friel starts with approximating heart rate at lactate threshold as the average over the last 20 minutes of a 30 minute all-out effort and Carmichael has a system built around a pair of 8 minute time trials which are logistically and psychologically easier to accommodate.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

Tldag3 said:


> Maximum Heart Rate Calculator
> 
> I might have used this one...
> 
> ...


If you really care you need to get on a setup allowing power measurement, start at an endurance pace, and add 25W/minute until your power is increasing while your heart rate does not.

At that point you've found your maximum heart rate.


----------



## ronnie s (Oct 9, 2013)

*Interesting reading*

Hi all,

I have found this thread very interesting and informative - thankyou.

I found it while snooping for answers to explain my situation.

I have a resting HR of about 80. I'm 45 y.o and always have had a resting HR of about 80 - even when I was 18 y.o and running marathons.

I recently saw a cardiologist (chest pains that turned out to be muscular)
he did a full stress test on me (treadmill and electrodes) and said my heart performed like a 20 y.o even though i do very little exercise he could tell (muscle memory) that I used to be an elite athlete.

Still today I can go for a run or ride for hours and not having done a single thing for many months and perform well and have no soreness.

What my main concern is and something i couldnt find in this thread were other experiences of what times other people run at their max HR.

I went for a 25km bike ride 3 days ago in 47 mins and had an AVERAGE HR of 185. Today I did the same ride and get a very similar result? I know we are able to stay on our max HR for a short period of time but was hoping someone might be able to share if they have any knowledge about prolonged max HR? 

I didnt even feel that i was pushing that hard and was thinking what would happen if i had a 3hr ride. surely sitting on 200bpm for 3hrs regardless of genetic dispositions can not be good?


----------



## Social Climber (Jan 16, 2013)

Ronnie, something seems amiss. Either your readings are incorrect or your MHR is a lot higher than 185. 

To reach your MHR you have to be working extremely hard, as hard as you possibly can, for short bursts. Think the final sprint to the finish in a close race with big money on the line. I am 50 and my MHR is around 185, but I can only maintain the output needed to get there for maybe 10-15 seconds at most. After that I am a quivering mess until I recover.


----------



## ronnie s (Oct 9, 2013)

Social Climber said:


> Ronnie, something seems amiss. Either your readings are incorrect or your MHR is a lot higher than 185.
> 
> To reach your MHR you have to be working extremely hard, as hard as you possibly can, for short bursts. Think the final sprint to the finish in a close race with big money on the line. I am 50 and my MHR is around 185, but I can only maintain the output needed to get there for maybe 10-15 seconds at most. After that I am a quivering mess until I recover.


Thanks heaps for replying so quickly; i couldnt see ur name 

yes, i agree, im guessing my MaxHR is higher but im reluctant to push to find out. i can keep my HR at about 185 for an hour and feel fine after. the 175 figure came from the very generic formula the cardiologist used. i want to push myself but scared that i will push too hard. when i was 18 this type of concern didnt exist lol i just pushed as hard and for as long as i could 

somebody else posted something that made sense. maybe i just have a smallish heart that works well, hence it pumps more?

im really enjoying getting back into cycling after so many years. looking after the heart is my main concern but after my first few rides im also negotiating hand numbness (still numbish today after yesterday's ride) maybe ulnic nerve pressure? and saw nuts!  lol thx again for your reply!


----------

