I recently bought myself a Garmin Vivoactive 4 activity tracker…….and I have started researching Max HR (bloody minefield it is too!)

I did the usual formula for a rough Max HR for my age….. 220 minus 63 (my age) and it gave me a top end of 157bpm.
I have been MTB’ing for about 12 years and I also use a Turbo Trainer about 5 times per week….I hasten to add that I’m about 30lbs overweight (due to lockdown comfort eating…)

I have found that the only way to get my HR to stay in the so called “fat burning zone” is to sit on my Turbo Trainer bike and do **** all…. no pedalling, nowt, as soon as I start to pedal in a low gear and stage 2 resistance setup, then my heart rate shoots up to the “Threshold” and then on to the “Maximum” levels, and after a 30 min HIIT (with 10 x 30 sec sprints) I feel as though I haven’t really worked out……does anyone know of an Android TT programme that will enable me to get a closer and clearer MAX HR for my age…. I know that I am not Uber fit…. but I would like to get the best out of my workouts……. cheers for any replies… (I have since setup up a 36 min intensity programme on my Galaxy S8 using the Tabata Timer app for Max HR discovery ……think this one is gonna hurt bigtime 😉 )

Ive found that max heart rate calculation inaccurate for myself. Ive been using a heart rate monitor for training for 4 or 5 years.  I’m early 40s and so it gives me max of just under 180. I’ve seen through repeated efforts using different heart rate monitors my max is about 210.  For a 40 min zwift race last week I averaged 175 BPM.

Compared to a friend i regularly ride I’ll be 30 bpm higher on average at same points on a ride, but my recovery is better.

Discussed it with GP at a check up and they have always been unconcerned.  Also listened to an interesting podcast by Fast talk in which they discussed training with  heart rate. The experienced coach stated that he saw a wide range of max HRs in his athletes across age range. Was normal.

<span style=”font-size: 0.8rem;”> Can you just do a stress test and get your actual number?</span>

Compared to a friend i regularly ride I’ll be 30 bpm higher on average at same points on a ride, but my recovery is better.

I normally just fall asleep not check my pulse.

The 220-age calculation has been shown to be pretty useless for those that regularly exercise. May be worth consulting your doctor to eliminate any underlying conditions and then undertaking a ramp test on your trainer to determine your actual maximum and use that as the basis for setting your HR zones for training

I’m 62 and my recorded Max HR on a hard ride will regularly exceed 170. As above, the 220-age thing doesn’t really apply to everyone.

Try Crickles Navigator, that will calculate your HR zones and max hr, plus ftp if you have power available. It also shows fatigue and fitness, it was developed by a heart surgeon with a sporting interest.

It links into your Strava activities

220-age is bunkum comes up here all the time.

Tell us what the max test says (it is on your bike yes? Will be different for other forms of exercise).

Yeah, 220-age as never been anywhere near right for me. Unfortunately the wrist monitors aren’t so good at the top end – my vivo was consistently lower than my chest monitor when riding at high HRs. Might be best to estimate where Z5 starts, generally speaking the point where you start getting out of breath, and go from there. Z2 does feel really really easy though, little harder that walking.

As above, http://www.crickles.org will give you heart zones.

After not doing much in October, my current zones according to Crickles are…
Z1 <136
Z2 136-147
Z3 148-156
Z4 157-166
Z5 >166

When I’m in decent shape, my Z4 raises up to ~175.

Average in the 150s+ and a max of 175-185 is very normal for me on sub 60min intensive training rides/ Zwift races/ Zwift TTs at almost 47, with a highest 20min average of up to ~169 at the mo.

I’m 58, max HR via Wattbike yesterday was 180, average 165 doing intervals. My HR like yours is higher for given effort than predicted via the Wattbike app which doesn’t take age into consideration. There’s a massive difference between individuals. Don’t go mental :o) I make bigger gains cycling with Mrs Davesport at a lower effort than I do cycling on my own. (Note to self, don’t try too hard)

Our heart rates are very individual, I’m 61 and can sit at 175bpm+ for a couple of minutes so the 220-age is complete tosh for me. In fact none of the formulae come close, they are just ways to avoid the only real way to determine your MHR – a ramp test. The problem with the ramp test is that it’s brutal and not everyone can summon the mental strength to do it properly.

But …

Using HR to control workout intensity has several problems. There’s the well known phenomenon of cardiac drift – for the same effort your HR rises over time. Heat and (de)hyrdration also affect the value as do things like caffeine and life stresses. HR is perhaps better used as an output indicator rather than an input. If you don’t have a power meter (or use a program/service that can use virtual power) then it’s better to work to RPE.

I use HR to analyse how I performed in a workout (I use TrainerRoad and follow their plans which means after a while you repeat plans and workouts so I can compare data over time), comparing a workout I did on Monday with instances from earlier in the year I can see that for increased effort (my FTP rose during this period) my HR is 10bpm lower – the whole histogram has shifted left by that amount. If I’d done that workout by HR I’d be in a different power and physiological zone so wouldn’t have been doing the right workout.

Yeah, 220-age as never been anywhere near right for me.

Jeez, I’d be dead…. the easiest solution was to remove the heart rate monitor.

to reiterate above, it’s an estimate but not accurate for all. It’s reasonably OK for me, about 170 for a 51 yo.

Couple of points. If like many your rides are mainly MTB and mainly short sharp up and down and repeat, Z2 is ridiculously easy. It genuinely is hold a conversation while pedalling level of effort. A lot of recreational MTBing, certainly in the area I live with no massive hills but constant ups and downs, is Z4/5 on climbs and then freewheel down, hence Z2 feels daftly easy.

Second – as a recreational cyclist, you don’t need a ramp test to get more out of your zones and hence training.  Find your threshold and base training off that:  do a warmup for 10 mins or so, get yourself breathing hard but not out of breath, and then go as hard as you can sustain for 30 mins, recording HR over this time. Tape over the monitor, don’t read the number, it has to be on feel, as hard as you can just about cling on for.

Once warmed down, take that 30 mins segment and chuck the first 10 mins away, because you’re either a bottler and went too easy and then increased, or an internet hardman and went too fast and then pulled back when you realised you couldn’t sustain it (if neither, it still doesn’t matter because the last 20 will still be the same as the first 10)

This average is what you can do for 20 mins. 95% of that is a decent measure for your one hour threshold and if you base your training around that it’ll be a better guide than using % of max even if you know your max quite accurately.

Z3 is then the zone under that threshold (conversation but short sentences with breathing between); Z4 is odd words. Z5 is max effort. And for a recreational cyclist aiming to get decent bang for the buck out of training time, spending time doing overs and unders above and below that level is rarely wasted.

(also note that you can’t do much to change that threshold HR value – what you can do is increase the power output at that level. It never gets easier, you just get faster)

The 220-age calculation has been shown to be pretty useless for those that regularly exercise.

Pretty useless for anyone – it’s a very old best fit line to a set of data from 1970. The only reason it won’t go away is the formula is easy to remember / use.

A better formula is 208 – 0.7x Age, but it still has a large Standard Deviation.

If you look at the data, used to derive the formula, you can see how varied individuals are:

https://theskepticalcardiologist.com/2018/03/09/what-should-your-maximal-exercise-heart-rate-be-the-importance-of-using-the-right-age-predicted-hrmax-formula/

As already said the 220 method is wrong. I’m 70 and my max is 186, I use a Garmin Edge 830 for my rides, I also have a Garmin Venu which at high levels of activity is running 10-15 beats lower, I have ridden at a consistant 165-168 for 30mins but the Venu is still off. So your Vivoactive 4 which has the same monitor could be off, I even shave my wrist under the monitor which gives better readings, and where the hell does all that hair come from when you get older, one day I have visions of waking up and looking like a Silverback.

As already said the 220 method is wrong.

It’s not wrong; it’s a best fit line to a population. The problem is this people, inc GPs, then assume that means that all members of the population conform to it.

It’s like saying the average height is 5’10” therefore your height is 5’10”.

It’s easy to find out what your max heart rate is. Go for it and when your vision starts to black out you’ll be about there. Zwift sprint races are good for this.

I am 64 and max hr is 175, it has been dropping a couple of beats a year as I get older. I hit 198 some years ago in the Alps. 5’5” and
9 1/2 stone. I ride regularly but not super fit I suppose. I agree about the fat burning zone though, I would be freewheeling most of the way if I kept to some HR zone recommendations. Wrist mount HR monitors are not as accurate as a chest strap, I use a vivoactive 3 and it doesn’t really read accurately on the wrist until I am properly warmed up as it doesn’t seem to read the blood flow properly when my arm is cold.

as others have said 220 – age isn’t useful for an individual as so often wrong. It’s only a few beats out for me (which still makes it rubbish for setting zones) but it’s way off for people I know.

I like the Carmichael 8 minute Tests (Google “CTS Field Test”) for setting zones and workouts as they’re short and sharp so psychologically easy to do properly compared to others.

re. fat burning zones etc…. I think I read somewhere that you actually burn more fat overall doing higher intensity workouts and recovering from them than doing lower intensity rides. (at lower intensities the %age of work done coming from fat is higher, but coz the load is less it’s less overall). Dunno if that’s right or not.

I’ve used my Vivoactive 4 and a Garmin chest strap HRM linked to a different unit simultaneously in order to get some comparison of accuracy. There’s not much in it.- a couple of bpm either way.

http://www.crickles.org will give you heart zone

thanks @salsa and @n0b0dy0ftheg0at for mentioning Crickles, it seems to offer a very interesting analysis.

But before I sign up, who is behind it and what is the basis of how they analyze your data? Although the website has an About page, it does not offer any answers to the sort of thing I like to know before giving them my data.

FWIW, as a 61yr old mountain biker my max HR is around 185 – as I have learned through Zwift races. I’ve also learned as @whitestone mentions that HR can drift significantly during a long ride for all sorts of reasons, so working to HR zones is a very approximate affair.

I agree with scotroutes. Vivoactive and wahoo chest strap are within a couple of beats. I’m 53 and my max is 165 which seems really low compared to some of the older peeps on here but my resting is 41bpm and sleeping has been down to 36bpm recently. Fitness wise I’m ok but all i’ve done since I was 5 y.o is cardio activities. Training was swimming for 15 years, Lifeguard training for a few years then cycling for the last 20 odd. My wife says i have a big heart !

Do we really need to do max HR tests?

I just do a 20MP (30 mins) test to find what I can hold HR-wise (ie, my Lactate Threshold Heart Rate) and work it out from that – info here
https://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/joe-friel-s-quick-guide-to-setting-zones/

Somewhere online I found how Joe Friel’s zones lined up with trad zones 1-4 that most HRMs use and I set my training levels off that – it was probably in his blog somewhere. Working it back from my 20 mins HR average it’s consistent with my max from 20 years ago. I’ve not tried to hit absolute max intentionally since then.

Wrist mount HR monitors are not as accurate as a chest strap

I find I have real lags with wrist based HR trackers compared to chest straps. Have you tried a chest strap OP?

I even shave my wrist under the monitor which gives better readings

interesting…

Yup absolute rubbish the 220-age. I’m 56 nearly 57 and in the last few months have recorded 199 and 198 bpm and have a threshold (top of zone 4) of 174-175bpm. Everyones different, some riders are diesels and other like me high-revvers

Crickles is run by a heart surgeon in the SEast, along with an IT person, the data is used to determine the heart and its responses in regard to exercise, there is an optional survey. The data has changed over the years as they continually refine it.

If you have further questions of them, give them an email they will reply to your questions they are very obliging with emails. It’s probably my main site for heart and tiredness etc along with HRV4.

I have no idea of the Crickles background, but I joined it after someone on here mentioned it 2+ years ago.

To be clear, once the wrist mount HR locks in to a stable reading it tracks the chest strap very closely, it just seems to take a while to stabilise, tightness of strap and position on wrist is quite critical-not going to go as far as shaving my wrist though!

This average is what you can do for 20 mins. 95% of that is a decent measure for your one hour threshold and if you base your training around that it’ll be a better guide than using % of max even if you know your max quite accurately.

Don’t think you take 5% off for LTHR, only when estimating power?

@oilkeith not tried a chest strap as yet… only just bought the Garmin watch… just trying to get my auld single grey cell round all this Max HR and training zones…. all double dutch to me it is….LOL

was looking for a decent ramp test for when I am on the TT… the ones I have seen on youtube look bloody brutal in the extreme…think my old legs or fitness would give out way before I reached my recorded Max HR…

Don’t bother testing MaxHR, do the 20/30 minute thing and set zones from your threshold.

Do we really need to do max HR tests?

No. Use the turbo trainer to do an FTP test. Get your FTHR from that then use the British Cycling HR Zone Calculator to get your HR zones.

@davy-g – that’s why there are so many formulae and other tests, done properly a Ramp Test has you feeling like John Hurt in the chest burster scene from Alien!

Another problem with using HR for determining effort is lag: start doing an interval and it can be a minute before your HR responds and gets to the level it should be for the effort. Not only that but the lag varies both according to the level of effort and how far into a workout/session you are.

Just work to Power (actual or virtual) or if you can’t do that, work to RPE.

scotroutes

I’m 62 and my recorded Max HR on a hard ride will regularly exceed 170. As above, the 220-age thing doesn’t really apply to everyone.

Or maybe the rule is correct, but you’re only 45?

I have been MTB’ing for about 12 years and I also use a Turbo Trainer about 5 times per week….I hasten to add that I’m about 30lbs overweight (due to lockdown comfort eating…)

I have found that the only way to get my HR to stay in the so called “fat burning zone” is to sit on my Turbo Trainer bike and do **** all

How much difference do you think it will make being in the zone?
I guess I might accidentally be in a zone but I just go out and cycle.
I did set the HR thing on my apple watch up but at the end of the day if I follow some routine or whatever if it comes to fat burning I don’t see how 4-5 hours off road can’t be burning calories or what I could do about it anyway. I mean the speed and the hill are what they are … I’m not going to slow down or stop just because my watch tells me.

I know when the alarm goes off that makes me anxious and my heartrate goes up so I just stopped wearing it.

@haze

you had me questioning myself over the 95%, and on googling I’m no smarter. Some say 20min rate x 95%, some say to take that number directly.

So let’s say your LTHR is probably between 95 and 100% of your 20 min average 😉

Remember this is good enough for recreational cyclists who want to get more out of their training. Better than 220-age, not as good as a full battery of tests.

For the average Joe HR is generally more accessible than power, also power can be trained whereas HR tends to be more fixed. By training you can double your power – you won’t double your HRmax or LTHR, you’ll just go faster at that HR.

Do we really need to do max HR tests?

No. Use the turbo trainer to do an FTP test.

That’s what I was saying in the rest of the post : ) Just do the 20MP / FTP / LTHR test and work out zones from there.

Yeah 97.5% would be close enough for most of us! 😁

cheers for the replies peeps…

I eventually managed to sign up to that crickles site last night. Gawd it was painful. Anyroadup, it seems to have generated some HR data for me to look at. I’m assuming that the HR Zones tab is the one I should be replicating in my Garmin?