[Closed] Tell me about maximum heart rates

I'm probably going to die!

No "probably" about it. You WILL die, but... your exercise regime is more likely to delay the inevitable.

As TSY says, no 'probably' about it. I'm not sure if it's good or bad news, but according to your mate in the office I'm either 14yrs old or dead.
As I am neither I'd say 220 minus age shouldn't be taken as being accurate. How quickly it gets back down to a more normal rate is more important than just the min/max thing.

i did some testing for some sports science students at uni and they were using 220 - age as a maximum for their tests....when i reached 208 at the age of 23 they got a bit worried....didn't help i was still chatting away and had been goin like that for 15mins! 😯 everyone is individual only way to set hr zones is to find some big hills go hell for leather and find your max several times to give an average high then go from there....but even that isn't very scientific

Don, you seem loads more mature than realman and he's like 18.

Pish and nonsense. The mere fact that you are cycling takes you out of the "average" that these figures are designed for. 220 - age would give me a max HR of 167 and at that I'm barely out of breath. According to my unscientific measurements, I'm seeing figures of 195 and even then it could be higher.

Don, you seem loads more mature than realman and he's like 18.

It's a "rule of thumb", I get over 210 at times during a cross race. All it means is that I have a high maximum heart rate compared to the rule of thumb at under 180. I'd have to stop cycling if I took any notice of it.

I find the best way (quickest/easiest) to record my maximum heart rate is to do a 20m bleep test; the progressive nature of the test ensures an even increase in output. I find it much harder to reach my max on the bike without a great big nasty hill.

As for 220 less your age; nonsense. Mine should be 185 in that case and I regularly hit 193.

Thanks for the feedback, it's put my mind at rest. BTW what's a 20m bleep test?

Oh and as for recovery time, I'll have to record it next time I'm out but I would say within a minute or 2 of hitting my peak if I lighten up, e.g reached top of the hill and coasting on the flat, I'm back down below 140 bpm

[url= http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/20mshuttle.htm ]bleep test.[/url]

You dont want to be bouncing off your max heart rate the whole time, just like you wouldnt want to go taking a revlimiterless car way past the red line. You might not blow it up, but it's certainly not a risk i'd be willing to take.

If you use the 220-age then mine should be 173. However, my 'threshold HR' is 174 (tested in the alb), which means I can keep that up for 20-25 mins no problem! On the trail often hit low 190s and have on the last 4 months managed a 195 albeit for a short period. According to the guy who occasionally 'tests' me in the lab for various experiments, the fact that I can still hit high HRs at my age is good and probably down to all the riding I do.

HRs are very individual though, a guy I ride with who is faster than me on most stuff has a maximum HR in the mid 170s.

220- age is rubbish.
i can hit 240 on an encoded hrm, but then my resting HR is never not much below 70bpm

All the people getting 200's + are probably just spikes whilst using Garmin or polar HRM straps.

Anything over that your heart 'would' explode. For those who say they have got 200 +, when did the spike occur? In the first 10minutes?

Static build up in the HRM - lots about this on the interweb.

Bollox. If you graph your HR, you can see what it's sitting at and rising to. Spikes are pretty obvious. If I can get somewhere around 195 when pushing it a bit, I can easily believe someone younger and fitter getting well over 200.

Anything over that your heart 'would' explode. For those who say they have got 200 +, when did the spike occur? In the first 10minutes?

45 and my I'm gonna puke level is 199. My max according to that formula is 175 and I can hold that and bit more in a 20min FTP test.

I've had 200 and a bit a few times. Sustained and not a spike.

My logic is i'll pass out before my heart fails. So er, get on with it. Find your real max by running up a 100m hill as fast as you can 10 times, until you feel like you're going to die. Then do it one more time as hard as you can - ideally you'll puke. At that point look at the max on the heart rate monitor - that's your actual max.

Make sure your heart rate monitor is working properly tho, not something you want to twice. I found people heckling helped.

a friend's wife didn't seem to think there was anything unusual in my heart rate passing 200.

context? 😯

All the people getting 200's + are probably just spikes whilst using Garmin or polar HRM straps.
Anything over that your heart 'would' explode.

Hmmm.... looks down at chest, nope its still working in there.

Maximum heart rates are entirely individual and have little bearing on how fit / unfit you are (although there's some evidence that MHR actually decreases as VO2 max increases).

Having a high or low MHR isn't a good thing, nor it is a bad thing. It just is what it is.

What's more worrying is how many docs / anesthetists think 60 is a minimum. Mrs flapjack had to surreptitiously do exercise to get above 60 to get released from hospital because the anesthetist thought that she still has anesthetic suppressing her heart rate. (Her resting was well known to us as mid 50s). I expect many STWers are down in the low 40s.

As mentioned lots above MHR is very individual and the 220 - age is complete rubbish. Whats more important is working range ie Min HR to Hax HR. For comparison, my RHR is 39 and I peak at 217. but can happily hold 195 for extended periods of time!

all irrelevant. it's what power you can maintain that counts.

Another "funny thing on hearts". Im 49years old and after a recent ECG at a company medical I had a "worried urgent" call from the doctor. He said he was about to go away for the weekend but felt he should warn me as they were worried about my test. The electrical heart signals were peaky and indicative of some potential problem. He told me not to get my heart above 120bpm and walk but not run anywhere. He knew I was a keen cyclist ....I said that wld be hard as I had a 1hr ride home from work and an XC ride the next day. Anyway it worried me and I saw a cardiologist the next week. They did an ECG as well as an ultrasound scan to check to see if there was any thickening of the heart muscle which could be indicated by my peaky ECG. The cardiologist said the my heart was in great shape and all fine and nothing to worry about. I would have been even more worried if a non medical mate hadn't already warned me that its quite common in people who do a lot of endurance sport to have the peaky electrical signal.

This one has interested me a lot since I started using a HRM. The "it is what it is" theory is the best starting point, but what we should be looking at is any long term change in the data. If you have a standard route and enough data you start to see a few patterns from the HRM data that you don't get from the speed or lapsed time. It may be years for me to see if the 220- age principle is ok, or if it is more to do with the amount and intensity of training.

I have been able to see times when I have had a viral infection influence how hard I can push (heart rate very high and speed well down). However, you don't need it if you know what your body does normally. The sad data weenie in me will collect this data and see if I can spot any trend in the massive amount of data that we now want to collect about ourselves.

Your heart won't explode if it goes fast. It's just mechanics - it'll reach a point where it can't pump the blood round quickly enough to keep the muscles going.

I've just started using a HRM (£13 from Aldi) and so far haven't managed to get above 166. I do have an ickle chest though. One of my mates reckons that his lactate threshold is about 160-165 so it maybe I'm feeling that and interpreting it as close to max when in fact there's more to go. I'm dead fit though 🙂