What is your maximum heart rate



mikesbytes

New Member
Apr 12, 2006
1,715
4
0
62
220? - your age = your maximum heart rate

So for me, its 220 - 45 = 175

But is this just a guide and it really depends on a number of other factors, such as your level of fitnees, your genetics, family history, what-ever.
 
mikesbytes said:
220? - your age = your maximum heart rate

So for me, its 220 - 45 = 175

But is this just a guide and it really depends on a number of other factors, such as your level of fitnees, your genetics, family history, what-ever.
according to that i should be at 195, but on sat i saw 206 on my hrm. :D
 
220-age is definitely just a guide, 230-age gives a closer approximation but is still only a guide (albeit a slightly better one).
 
matagi said:
220-age is definitely just a guide, 230-age gives a closer approximation but is still only a guide (albeit a slightly better one).

I had never heard the 230 variation but it is better. I am 50 and my max heart rate is 177.
 
mikesbytes said:
220? - your age = your maximum heart rate

So for me, its 220 - 45 = 175

But is this just a guide and it really depends on a number of other factors, such as your level of fitnees, your genetics, family history, what-ever.
But Max HR isn't based on a formula. The definition of Max HR is the highest HR you can achieve while biking, running, rowing (pick your favorite sport). Could be observed in a lab setting with a fancy test protocol, or just going out on the road, warming up and then hitting a big climb for all your worth.

Various formulas may be used to estimate max HR, but they can be off significantly, eg, 20 bpm or more, which makes the formula worthless for setting up HR training zones. FYI, I'm 58, with a max of 182 bpm.
 
dhk2 said:
But Max HR isn't based on a formula. The definition of Max HR is the highest HR you can achieve while biking, running, rowing (pick your favorite sport). Could be observed in a lab setting with a fancy test protocol, or just going out on the road, warming up and then hitting a big climb for all your worth.

Various formulas may be used to estimate max HR, but they can be off significantly, eg, 20 bpm or more, which makes the formula worthless for setting up HR training zones. FYI, I'm 58, with a max of 182 bpm.
So the way to work out your maximum heart rate is to buy a heart rate monitor that will caputure your maximum for the session without stuffing up and see what the biggest figure you can get out of it.
 
frenchyge said:
This has just been discussed ad nauseum here: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t365062.html
OK, summary of this thread
4 answers to Max heart rate;
* 220 - age for mear mortals
* 230 - age for super fit dudes/dudettes
* Scienitific testing can give a more accurate figure
* Push yourself to the max and record the reading

Other findings are;
* Genetics plays a part, being fit does not guarantee that you won't have a heart attack, however fit people who die of heart attacks, would of died even younger if they they weren't fit.
* Carrera's heart is as big as his quads
* Heart rate discussions are similar to crank length discussions. We end up disagreeing and insulting each other.
 
according to my polar 725x, mine (at the moment) is 179.
it's been steadily working it's way down from 185 earlier in the year.
it uses a "fitness test" which determines it.
as my fitness improves, my maxHR has been decreasing...

although literally, the maximum heart rate that is survivable will be right before it fibralates (sp?) which is somewhere round the 240bpm mark...
 
mikesbytes said:
220? - your age = your maximum heart rate

So for me, its 220 - 45 = 175

But is this just a guide and it really depends on a number of other factors, such as your level of fitnees, your genetics, family history, what-ever.

220 - age has a SEM (or SD, can't recall) of +/- 15 b/min. In the people that i coach, i have some elite athletes that can *not* reach this level (220-age), and the vast majority that overshoot it.

ric
 
ric_stern/RST said:
220 - age has a SEM (or SD, can't recall) of +/- 15 b/min. In the people that i coach, i have some elite athletes that can *not* reach this level (220-age), and the vast majority that overshoot it.

ric
does it really matter so much what max HR is? Will someone with a max HR of 210 necessarily be, or have the potential to be a better cyclist than someone with a max of 170? Surely stroke volume is also important? Would it not make sense that a larger heart needs to beat less often than a smaller heart to pump enough blood around at maximum physical effort?

I am 27 and my max HR is apparently 176 (resting 44) and it seems to beat very slowly compared to others during races. My normal race rate is about 140-150. I have ridden cat 1 crits and not seen a reading above 170 while some of my competitors have been over 190 and it doesn't seem to cause me any problems....
 
ric_stern/RST said:
no. i made the point in my previous post.

ric
That's cool. It's just I get the feeling that some people think "the faster the better".....
 
BullGod said:
does it really matter so much what max HR is?
Yes
But it's not cmoparable between people though, purely for training purposes.
 
mikesbytes said:
* Heart rate discussions are similar to crank length discussions.
Yes... Here are two pertinent points:

  • The formula(s) that people keep quoting represent averages. That means that if I pick a thousand people off the street and test their heart rates, I will find that their MHR closely follows the formula. On the other hand, if I check any single person, I have a roughly one-third chance of finding a person the MHR of whom will deviate by more than 15bpm from the number the formula gives (I am using Ric's number for the standard deviation here). Or, in other words, if you are naive enough to base your training on such a formula, you have a chance of one third of being off by a lot...
  • MHR is a poor indicator of fitness; people keep quoting their MHRs as if they are like horsepowers of a car, but that is complete nonsense. There could be all sorts of reasons why somebody has a higher MHR than somebody else that have nothing to do with fitness, including a person having a relatively small heart (that needs to beat faster to produce the required blood volume flow), an inefficient cardiovascular system, etc.
 
Dietmar said:
[*]MHR is a poor indicator of fitness; people keep quoting their MHRs as if they are like horsepowers of a car, but that is complete nonsense.
[/list]

Very true. MHR is more like the redline in a car (to continue the analogy). Some cars have a low redline, but are very powerful at low revs (think big V8). Other cars have a very high redline, but also need a lot of revs before you get power out of them (e.g. 4-cylinders, or a motorcycle.... which isn't a car, but yeah).
 
Dietmar said:
Yes... Here are two pertinent points:

  • The formula(s) that people keep quoting represent averages. That means that if I pick a thousand people off the street and test their heart rates, I will find that their MHR closely follows the formula. On the other hand, if I check any single person, I have a roughly one-third chance of finding a person the MHR of whom will deviate by more than 15bpm from the number the formula gives (I am using Ric's number for the standard deviation here). Or, in other words, if you are naive enough to base your training on such a formula, you have a chance of one third of being off by a lot...
  • MHR is a poor indicator of fitness; people keep quoting their MHRs as if they are like horsepowers of a car, but that is complete nonsense. There could be all sorts of reasons why somebody has a higher MHR than somebody else that have nothing to do with fitness, including a person having a relatively small heart (that needs to beat faster to produce the required blood volume flow), an inefficient cardiovascular system, etc.
Good points. Max HR is not defined as a formula. Instead, it's an actual measured value for each individual. You could have a formal lab test done, or just go out on the road and test yourself performing a max effort climb while wearing an HRM.

Also agree it has nothing to do with power output or fitness. I may have the same max HR (184 bpm) as a TdF rider, but my sustainable power is only ~ 50% of theirs.
 
mikesbytes said:
OK, summary of this thread
4 answers to Max heart rate;
* 220 - age for mear mortals
* 230 - age for super fit dudes/dudettes
* Scienitific testing can give a more accurate figure
* Push yourself to the max and record the reading
My max heart rate is aroud 220bpm (not 220-age, but 220). I'm no superman. I just won't fall over dead if I get it up that level. All of my other numbers are pretty close to normal. My resting HR is 48bpm. I start to become anaerobic around 170-175. 190-205 is typically where I'll peak out. But, if I really feel like pushing it, I can hit 220 and sustain it for a couple of minutes. The law of diminshing returns, however, says that I pump less blood on each beat, so I don't get significantly better performance by doing this.

The lesson here? MAX HR doesn't mean ****. It's just a number. Nice to know, but my real peak for performance is a good 10% lower than my absolute MAX HR.