Forum menu
I've recently got round to setting up the HRM feature on my Garmin, and was surprised to see just how high my HR seemed to get whilst out riding. Going at what I thought was a hard-but-sustainable pace (on the flat), my HR was at about 90% of max. On any climbs, it hit the theoretical maximum and stayed there until a good bit after the climb had finished.
I've definitely been in better shape, but I have been keeping active.
Should I be aiming to avoid such high heart rates? I'm 39 in a few weeks. About 3 stone overweight. Obviously reducing my weight will have a big impact on the work my heart has got to do, but how do I get there if I need to just pootle along?
theoretical maximum is just that. yours could be much higher. how did you feel?
I start feel proper ropey if I'm operating anywhere near my max heart rate.
90% isn't that high for a tough but sustainable climb is it? I would expect to see over 95% at times if on a hard run, race or ride.
Do you know what your max is, you mention theoretical, mine is much higher, 191 at 40.
How have you measured your HR max?
If you're using the Garmin ones, it may be set wrongly....However, it's pretty easy to get and keep your HR up if you're just churning away at the pedals.
If you do the 220 - (your age) thing, my max is 164. My real max is 188 (the highest I've seen on a ride this year), and I've been on some multi hour rides where my average is above that theoretical max. So if you are worried I should be terrified.
The theoretical maximum HR are just that - theoretical, useful as a starting point but can be quite a bit out, perhaps anywhere up to +/- 20BPM. The (very) simplistic 220-age is way too low for me for example, on one local hill I can sustain an HR of 8BPM above that figure for over a minute and still feel like I've got something left in the tank (might just be vapours!).
In your case the value is obviously wrong as typically you should only be able to hit that value for a few seconds. The best way to determine your MHR is by testing, which might not be that pleasant 😳
My max HR is above 210, it doesn't worry my, I just try not to go there too often.
I used to push myself till I was seeing stars (around 189BPM) but that was 15+ years ago and I really can't be arsed any more. I'm sure you'll know if you're working too hard. As others have already said, 220-age is only a guide, everyone's different.
I've only worked it out with the 220-age rule, and the fact that I haven't seen it go above that number on the few rides I've been on.
I felt ok whilst riding at that level, but after a steep climb I stopped at the top and felt quite light headed for a few mins
Kinda good to use the 220-Age calc but it's only a guide.
Start off with it, then ride hard whilst recording and then see where you are with it.
Thresholds innit.
As is you'll find a good place once you get into it and recording rides, over time you can add intervals into riding to see/match/improve fitness.
T'is all about tracking and monitoring, but you do need a good place to start and the 220-Age thing is at best a start point only.
http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones
Someone who knows more about all this than most suggests that 220 minus age is as likely to be wrong as right.
Is there any research done on consistent high HR and long term effects on health?
I'm a high-beater (max 204) but also have poor VO2 and a high resting HR (55) so when racing or on climbs I expect to see a high HR. I have good blood pressure, if a little low and am genuinely interested in this.
Oh and WRT the 220 thing. I'm 36, so it doesn't work for me either.
Max heartrate bollocks is just bollocks that has no value or purpose. There's nothing wrong or particularly unusual about having a heart rate substantially different from these silly formulae. Mine used to be way lower than the 220-age formula, but is not changing as I age so is slowly getting closer.
55 is not a high resting rate.
Mine was at/over 95% for an hour during a CX race yesterday, and normally during CX.
Compared to the general populace 55 is a low to very low RHR. A couple of years ago I had an ECG as part of a pre-op and the monitor went crazy as my RHR was below 60. Apparently they regard anything below that as "abnormal" - Miguel Indurain with his 30BPM or whatever it was would be regarded as a Vulcan on that scale! 😆
The only thing that I've seen regarding cycling heart work rate and long term health was about racing cyclists when they retired in that they had to ease off the workload in a progressive manner rather than just stopping otherwise they risked heart problems.
I only ever look at my HR when I'm doing specific zone training, ie going long and slow, so I monitor it to make sure I don't exceed about 70% of my HR max. (for me that a range between 125-150) or doing maximum effort reps.
the rest of the time, I don't really care much at all
That's an interesting article jameso - maybe that was my LTHR as opposed to my Max HR.
I'd love to know my VO2 max and max heart rate - are there places where you can book in to get this stuff professionally measured? Not for any sort of training program, just out of interest really.
It's 220 - your age then plus or minus 20. So quite a variation.
I have a low HR compared with my peers but when at similar fitness levels and running up a hill, for example, our % of max is the same. The actual numbers are relatively meaningless.
220-age sits in the same pile as BMI. Useful for those who sit in front of the telly, eat far too much and consider 20 minutes walk as vigorous exercise.
220-Age is complete pony, ignore it. Hitting max HR is more of a mental thing than a physical IMO.
Miguel Indurain with his 30BPM
In the recent interview in Cyclist magazine he notes that this quoted figure was a bit off a one off due to slightly odd circumstances and that normally it was a bit higher. Still its fair to say he didn't have a high resting HR, but then neither do most highly trained athletes.
True about RHR, I have a very low RHR too and had to go into hospital twice over Xmas period (for the same symptoms, but at two different hospitals) Both kept me in for 3 days due to not understanding I'm a fit lad and they thought I was having a heart attack...
I had to explain on more than a number of occasions to Doctors that I ride a lot and train intervals and such. Each Doc that questioned me didn't believe my RHR and thought I was having a heart attack...! I was a bit scared at first but once the symptoms became clear they both (hospitals) backed off the heart issues they thought I had and an endoscopy which revealed the truth 😐
@kevin1911 Possibly the first place to check would be a university sports department - they often advertise such tests. No idea of cost, etc.
@Dragon I read that interview, couldn't remember the exact figures but his RHR was very low by any accepted criteria.
Your max hr is your max hr, there is no right or wrong. You can work out your LTHR as a percentage of the max(roughly) or accurately by doing 30 minutes flat out, then taking 95% of the final 20 minutes.
As an example my max is 185 but my LTHR is 150, the second figure is the point at which lactate builds at such a rate I can only sustain the effort for 1 hour. It also forms the basis of my other zones.
I find all this stuff both interesting and useful in improving fitness.
btw you can select "auto detect max hr" in your garmin and will do a rough job of working out your zones from the maximum hr it records.
Things have moved on since Max HR because it is an unreliable measure. Threshold is much more useful to set zones. I'm 48 and have an observed MHR of 191. My threshold is about 175 bpm. This sets my zones. Calculator here https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/membership/article/20120925-Power-Calculator-0
I was going to ask how they actually measure max heart rate, but then:
Hitting max HR is more of a mental thing than a physical IMO
I think I would agree with this; however hard I would go when being tested somehow, if I was doing the same but being chased by a hungry bear or something I'm sure I could work that little bit harder!
Max HR through destructive testing? Hmmmmm...
[i]Not for any sort of training program, just out of interest really.[/i]
TBH the only thing it's remotely useful for is training programs, so unless you like shelling out for pointless medical tests, you really will be wasting your money.
to work out your max hr, warm up a bit, hit a hill or two reasonably hard, then take a sustained effort at one, when you think you given it all, go again and again until you are properly done.
Thats you max, repeat as often as you like itll be the same +\- 2/3bpm, its not in the head unless your slacker.
When I used to row, my coach used to say: don't worry about how high your HR is, only worry when it says '0'
I think the max HR test is based on sequential increase in output. i.e. bike up hill and increase effort say every 30 seconds (its not going to be a nice experience!). Always I would say go to Doc to get a check up before doing something like this.
OP what was your heart rate anyhow?
If I do the 220 - (your age) thing, my max is 170. My experienced max whilst riding my local trails (SDW near Winchester) is 187 and I often ride 90% of my rides at 90% of my max HR. My RHR is 45 and has always been very low even if I'm not fit.
I have a similar problem to whitestone and bikebuoy when I go to hospital as my low resting heart rate (which doesn't rise much when I'm in the ward) combined with a genetic issue where I run a high temperature all the time cause near panic. Apparently normal body temperature ranges between 36.1C (97F) to 37.2C (99F) but I run around 37.5C as my normal. Sets off multiple alarms when I get hooked up to a monitor.
Funky Dunc - seemed to get to 179bpm and not go any further. I'll maybe try to bury myself when I'm next out to see if I can get it higher 😯
Find a treadmill somewhere and actually measure your max heart rate, then you'll know. (Unless you fall off the back of the treadmill afterwards, you're not pushing hard enough).
Three minutes at "hard" pace, 30 seconds rest, another three minutes but keep increasing the gradient. You'll feel pretty ill afterward.
So to answer the original question that's not a high heart rate by any measure and no it's not dangerous.
Everybody forgets the plus or minus 20 when doing the 220- your age. It's a range which the majority of the population will fit into. That's all. Also, at max HR you will not die because your heart explodes just that your heart becomes inefficient at that point so you can't push your muscles any further.
Going at what I thought was a hard-but-sustainable pace (on the flat), my HR was at about 90% of max
What makes you think 90% is a problem? Why would you expect it to be anything else?
It's normal.
What makes you think 90% is a problem? Why would you expect it to be anything else?
I've read advice in several places saying that it's best to keep your heart rate inside 85% of maximum. Just wanted to know if I was alone in seeing high(ish) HR
I've read advice in several places saying that it's best to keep your heart rate inside 85% of maximum.
That depends entirely on who you are and what you want to achieve 🙂
Plus, measuring your max is quite difficult. It's not just your HR at the top of a big climb. You have to be in an extreme amount of discomfort, so much so that it forces you to stop. Feeling sick and/or quite queer may feature. Not just the normal 'oh I'm tired now I'll have a rest' that you get on rides.
It's also different for different sports - so your max cycling has to be measured when cycling, and so on.
first I've heard of 220-age having an error of plus/minus 20.
Pretty much makes it even less useful than it was before.......
(I'm at more than +20. Nearer +30 actually....)
I've read advice in several places saying that it's best to keep your heart rate inside 85% of maximum.
from personal experience, it's pretty much impossible to keep my heart-rate that low while i'm exercising.
(unless i'm consciously taking it easy)
Less than 85% wouldn't be "training" it'd be recovery, or commuting, possibly sightseeing.
Sightseeing somewhere flat.
first I've heard of 220-age having an error of plus/minus 20.Pretty much makes it even less useful than it was before.......
(I'm at more than +20. Nearer +30 actually....)
There's a little info at the top of this page:
http://www.brianmac.co.uk/maxhr.htm
Not so much an error, just defining a range. Usefulness depends what you want to do with the info. Training - yeah, useless. To see if you fit in with a range that is considered normal within a population then very useful. You obviously don't. Whether that is a cause for concern or just that you're in the 5% outside that range is another matter 😉
I got a HRM when I was about 34/35. I used it a couple of times and my HR went up to 200. I read this might be a problem so I sold the HRM and din't worry about it after that. 🙂
I'd love to know my VO2 max and max heart rate - are there places where you can book in to get this stuff professionally measured? Not for any sort of training program, just out of interest really
Max HR is easy. Just push till you can't any more.
I did a lab test at my local uni last year to establish my LT and Vo2max - ramp test on a bike (excalibre I think) with a mask tracking breathe consistency and blood samples taken from your finger every minute. Interesting reading, but not really needed for an amateur. Cost around £120 if I remember right.
Trained based on HR for many years. I'm 37, Max is 202, regularly see 195-196, hour pace is somewhere between 178-83 all day pace is 156. Caffeine, illness, fatigue all make a difference so I'm just in the process of converting over to power
It's physically impossible to sustain your max heart rate for more than a number of seconds, therefore you have not attained it - if you are comfortable holding the high heart rate then it's not a problem