Calculation of MHR

Hiya, I'd just like to check out what you think of my MHR calculation.

I'm 52 and have been aerobically fit all my life. I wouldn't call myself an elite athlete at the moment. My resting HR is 50 bpm

I used the calc 217 - (0.85*age) with the corrections for cycling but not using the elite athlete correction. This gave 168 bpm.

Using the elite corrections gives 170 bpm, for all intents and purposes the same.

I tried out my new HAC5 today (1st impressions are very good but there's a lot to learn) and when I was working hard, either up hill or in a big gear on the flat, I was peaking at 165 bpm.

I wasn't 'burying' myself or feeling unduly distressed. I just wonder if my Max HR shouldn't be a little higher.

Anyone with some expertise like to comment?


Peter

 

The equations for ascertaining HRmax are not accurate for individuals the standard error of the mean is +/- 12 (or 15) b/min. If you want to know your HRmax, you'll need to do some sort of test (if you're fit for it) to ascertain HRmax.

Ric

 

At 64 years of age my HR goes up to 167bpm in the gym on some intervals and as I don't fall of the bike I guess my MHR is a few beats higher. But as I always say, who cares - I only take a peek at my HR at the end of an interval, I certainly don't train by or more precisely limit my training by sitting with eyes glued to the HR meter. The heart will take anything you give it, assuming that is, you don't have a congenital heart problem in the first place.

Cheers! TYSON

 

I worked on the turbo tonight and hit 190 bpm in a stress test. Just goes to show how far out the formulae can be, nearly 12%.

Peter

 

Goes to show all sorts of things. I see that above you said that you were "working hard" at an HR of 165, and now it turns out your max is at least 190. Now, in my book, with an MHR around 195, if I am at 165 that is quite a relaxed pace. So, when you said you were "working hard" before, what was that supposed to mean? Maybe you just felt that you must have been working hard because you thought that is what your HR relative to that silly formula indicated? Lesson: Forget about that formula; it is entirely meaningless for any individual.

 

Good point Dietmar

When I said working hard I really mean just starting to get into the Lactic threshold zone, when it begins to burn. The next day I hit 169 on a hill doing my normal hill effort i.e. working steadily at the hill. Without a HRM it would be unremarkable as normal everyday cycling so working hard in that respect.

I know full well that there's a lot more to come and that there's a whole other possible dimension to the term 'working hard' but I hope that I indicated that wasn't the case by my comments about not feeling unduly distressed.

I've become aware that I have been pushing too hard on endurance training rides, easily done in such a hilly area.

Now I've got my training zones sorted (what other reason would one need to know MHR?) training with the HRM feels right.

I know from personal experience over many years, mostly as a runner without a HRM that effective recovery is vitally important for myself as I find it all too easy to do too much and then suffer the consequences.

Peter

 

Yeah, I guess my main point is (listen up SillyOldTwit) that heart rate is really not a good indicator for anything at all. You can probably get some information out of it if you look at the evolution of your rates over longer periods of training, but on any given day, your HR may be off in one way or another, for all sorts of reasons.

Case in point: Last week I was on a conference, and after having had a couple of cups of coffee in the morning to get through some bopring talks, I went to the gym instead of having lunch. The result was that I ended up with an average HR slightly above 95% of my MHR over a total time of an hour. Now, I was working hard, but not as hard as that (the stupid exercise bike they had did not measure power, but even when I was spinning at low load my HR did not drop below 180). My guess is that, without the coffee, my average HR would have been at least 10 beats lower.

Moral: Don't drink coffee and exercise...

 

Everyone is different of course but I'm not so negative about HRMs. They work okay for me.

I suppose those that can afford proper power meters can also afford to 'dis' cheap ol' HRMs

I've yet to set up the HAC5 to measure all it's parameters and will probably only get to doing that in the Spring. It remains to be seen if it estimates power more accurately than the HAC4 did.

I've trained for many years (albeit mainly as a runner) doing intervals and found a HRM effective at ensuring I wasn't loafing during hard sessions, making sure I get good recovery and giving an indication of my state of fitness.

Peter