Question re: heart rate

[pyxichick]

I was on a ride the other day with a guy who could read my heart rate on his bike computer (he wasn't wearing a monitor, so it was picking up mine) and when we went up a hill, he said "wow, bird heart. If my heart rate ever got that high I'd be dead!"

So I'm wondering, what is "normal" for a maximum heart rate? Sometimes mine pegs out at 194 if I'm going up a steep hill or even if I go all out on a flat trail. I sense this is pretty high, based on all the stuff I've read about how to determine your max HR.

I've been a xc skier for 6 years, so I'm not just starting my exercise program or anything. My resting HR is 72, which seems normal. Is there any danger in riding with my HR up so high?

Any answers are greatly appreciated!

Kate

[Fredwina]

I think you're referring to the 220 - your age, which is more of a wild guess than anything else. I'm 45 , and I can get it into the 190's

[RoadRaven]

Hey there PC... there is no "normal" max HR or resting... you can do guestimates based on your age, but they are not always accurate.

The "official" calulation for guesstimates is 220 minus your age...

The younger you are, the higher you max and resting heart rates will be... the older you are, the lower your max and resting HRs.

But there can be dramatic variations

For example, my partner (43) maxs at about 180 and his resting is about 48bpm... he is extremely fit and rides in the top grade in the local club

...but my brother in law who is 3 years younger has a max of about 200, but his resting HR is about 60 - he has been as fit as my partner as he was a decathalete when younger.

My 17yr old son is about 200 and his resting is in the high 40s

My 15 1/2 yr old maxs at about 210 and also has a resting HR in the high 40s.

I am 41 (almost) and I max at about 172, but my resting HR is unusally low for my age at 39bpm...

I guess all this post has done is confuse... but I hope it has also, in some way, helped...

[pyxichick]

Thank you both.

I guess I won't worry about it. It's good to know that it's not abnormal to get my HR up that high.

Now my goal is to get in better shape, so it doesn't need to go that high on my flat midwestern rides:)

Kate

[chickwhorips]

i'm just like you. my heart rate is higher.

from what i'm told its not a bad thing, just a lower heart you may be able to go longer from what i understand.

still trying to figure the whole thing out.

[susan.wells]

Another hummingbird here! I thought my ceiling for bicycling was 196 until this year when I hit 200 on a steep climb during this lovely sauna-like heat wave. I'm almost 49.

[Tuckervill]

I'll bet it's important to note how you felt when your heartrate was 200. How did you feel?

If you didn't have a heart rate monitor, wouldn't you just go by how you feel, and only worry if you felt poorly?

Karen

[Deborajen]

My HR is high, too. I'm 44 and so far have seen a max of 192 (at the end of a 10K running event). During that same 10K, my HR stayed pretty much at 186. I've been running for over four years so I'm in pretty good shape, but isn't 97% of MHR a little high for that long? I felt good the whole time, wasn't wiped out afterwards, etc. When I woke up that morning and put on the heart monitor, my HR was 90 (after I got out of bed and started walking around) whereas it's usually around 80, so obviously I had some adrenaline working. Maybe my MHR is actually higher than 192 - I don't know. I'm still trying to figure it all out. HR is always lower on the bike, but it does shoot up on climbs.

It does seem to take some experimenting and adjusting for everyone.--

Deb

[yogabear]

I'm thinking that heart rate monitors are interesting to train with, etc. But, they don't give the whole story :) I train with one, but my hubby trains with a power tap and heart rate monitor. He looks more at his watts and he says this year, it has given him more valuable data for his training...

Hmmm, since he's gettin' a new road bike this year...Hmm, maybe I can hint around...'Honey, I'd sure like a power tap too!' ROTFLMAO :)

I remember when I was 'younger' (say 10 years ago), I saw my heart rate get up to the 190's in a mtn. bike race. As I've gracefully aged though, my heart rate usually doesn't get over 180's (and this is in criteriums, mind you)...

Everyone is different, so naturally, there's not a right or wrong or typical for anyone when it comes to heart rate :)

Peace out,
Lisa

[RoadRaven]

I'm thinking that heart rate monitors are interesting to train with, etc. But, they don't give the whole story :) I train with one, but my hubby trains with a power tap and heart rate monitor. He looks more at his watts and he says this year, it has given him more valuable data for his training...


ENVY... I WANT a power tap....

HR monitors are a gizmo many people seem to get without an understanding of how to use them and get all excited about nubers and draw interesting conclusions... I agree - they do not give the whole story and are just one tool in your training repertoirre

I use my HR monitor to train with - for example, to make sure I keep my HR low in recovery rides

I also use my HR monitor to race with - to keep me at just below my lactate threshold for the length of the race, and to ensure i don't blow my HR racing on hills.

[li10up]

Another hummingbird here! I thought my ceiling for bicycling was 196 until this year when I hit 200 on a steep climb during this lovely sauna-like heat wave. I'm almost 49.
This seems very unusual...are you sure there wasn't some sort of electrical interference? Overhead power lines can make your HR monitor put out some false readings. Also, other people's HR monitors can interfere with your readings if you get close enough to them.

[Eden]

This seems very unusual...are you sure there wasn't some sort of electrical interference? Overhead power lines can make your HR monitor put out some false readings. Also, other people's HR monitors can interfere with your readings if you get close enough to them.


It's not that unusual - some of us are bunny rabbits, and among the women that I know who race, as a group we seem to have a tendancy to be in the high max range. My max is 211 (I'm 34). Now if I see 230 or something ridiculous like that I can be pretty sure its powerline/electric fence etc. interference.

[easterbird]

older woman chimes in:)
this discussion is timely...I've been doing some googling about max hrt. I used the 220-age to come up with 'my' HRT max of 161(I'm 58.5 YO) and have been riding almost one year. In anticpation of my first century ride on 09 Sept, I decided to really push myself to do more hill climbing. I have now have a high one day of 166 and another day at 173. I was pretty winded at top of that portion of the climb but recovered quickly enough to continue to the real top. My RHRT is 55 or less. I'm wondering if I should change my limits on my HR monitor to use these new data for max. My thought being that I want to make the most of my workouts and calorie burn by keeping myself in the 65-85% range.Old versus new would be 109-139 or 113-147. Is this the right way to use HR data?

[Raindrop]

Heart rate measurments are guestimates and the 220-age or the woman's 226-age is one that fits only about 1/3 of the population. Also, a higher max heart rate is not a sign of fitness. The heart rate is what it is, in that it's genetically programmed. However, as one trains to get fitter you'll find the ability to work at higher heart rates without going anaerobic.

Also, it has been shown that the heart rate doesn't necessarily decline as one ages as long as you keep aerobically fit. I use a heart rate monitor when I train and I encourage my clients (I'm a personal trainer and Spinning instructor) to use one as well.

I think if you coorelate your breathing to your heart rate you get a better estimate of your possible heart rate max. That, and also going with highest number seen. You'll know when you get into the "red zone" of your heart rate max when you are thouroughly warmed up and then work increasingly harder until you reach a point that you can no longer increase your effort and at this point most people feel the need to slow down since they are close to puking.

For most of us this is an area we don't care or need to work at. I read an interesting article by Dr. Len Kravitz that illustrates how to determine if you're working at a level that will increase your cardio-respitory fitness:

http://www.drlenkravitz.com/Articles/talktest.html

[mimitabby]

My resting HR is 60 today!! (whoopiee! it used to be closer to 80)
I'm 54 years old
but I wore a HR monitor this weekend for the first time and found out
that much over 162 and I am really getting stressed. The good news
is that my HR goes back down fairly quickly.

So, if you are 40 or over I would be concerned about those numbers
but if you are just a sweet young thing, you probably aren't hurting yourself
but keep working and it will go down.

[spokewench]

i haven't hit 190's since I was 40! No way can I get it that high anymore!

I'm 46. I used to have a fast heartrate also when I was racing in my 30's. It was always kind of hard to take when my husband who is 5 years older would be 10-20 beats slower!

But, like most people say here, everyone's heart rates are different and will vary with training.

[7rider]

I think I recall reading somewhere that a woman's heart rate is generally ~10 bpm higher than a man's for any given activity (all things considered). Anyone see that same bit o' info?
DH has me by 7 years of age, but it's startling how different our HRs are on the same hill. I can't swing my leg over a bike without my HR going up to 150 or higher. Highest I've seen for me was 188 (vs. my Polar's "predicted" maxHR from me of 185). To do real training in my 70-80% zone, I could never take the bike out on the road. I'd be forever on the rollers.

[RoadRaven]

K... I'm back in this thread again... just been sussing out my max as I have been pushing myself harder these last few weeks

According to the calculation 220-age (41) my max shouls be around 179... but I have managed to get my max up to 184 in a race situation recently, sprinting... feeling fairly sick when I finsihed (but I did win the sprint! so it was worth it). I have since pushed myself a few times over 180, so I know it wasn't an annomoly.

My resting heart rate usually sits in the low 40s, but the lowest I have seen it is 39 on a few occasions.

So my range, at 41yrs (and 1 month) is 184bpm-39bpm

Its fascinating to read everyone elses and how you use/interpret this information for your training and racing.

[RoadRaven]

To do real training in my 70-80% zone, I could never take the bike out on the road. I'd be forever on the rollers.

Regina - I am interested by your words here.

Do you mean you cant get your heart rate up on the road?

See, if thats what you're saying, I find that interesting because I can't get my HR as high on the spin bike as I can when I am on the road. So I use the spin bike for specific rides - like cycling at 90 or 95 cadence for 45 minutes, or doing step up intervals.

The other training that involves pushing my LT, or hills, I do out on the road, as I cant seem to simulate it effectively indoors.

[lph]

I'm curious about my heart rate lately too. My brother died young and completely unexpectedly of a heart attack recently, so I've been taking a somewhat morbid interest in my heart function that I previously couldn't have cared less about.

So I borrowed a HR monitor and on my first ride (dirt road in the woods, plenty of hills) I was idly reckoning out my max HR to be ...lemmesee... 220-37=183. Next hill I hit there were some fit young men ahead just begging to be passed :D and before I knew it I had hit 185.
And on similar occasions (that is, fit young men, slow old women, or just anybody, actually, that NEEDS passing :rolleyes: ) I've easily hit 180-185 and kept that rate for 10-20 seconds. So the formula obviously is inaccurate for me.

So from that I'm guessing my max is 190 or higher. I know you're supposed to test it individually, but it sounds like such a hassle, throwing yourself up a hill 3 times til you almost puke? :eek:

Another surprise was that with a resting HR of about 55 (evening, not morning) I still have a much higher HR (75-100) just moving around the house. Weird.

[7rider]

Regina - I am interested by your words here.

Do you mean you cant get your heart rate up on the road?

See, if thats what you're saying, I find that interesting because I can't get my HR as high on the spin bike as I can when I am on the road. So I use the spin bike for specific rides - like cycling at 90 or 95 cadence for 45 minutes, or doing step up intervals.

The other training that involves pushing my LT, or hills, I do out on the road, as I cant seem to simulate it effectively indoors.

Oops.. Sorry for the delay, Raven. I haven't checked this thread in a while.

No, I"m saying I can't keep my HR low on the road. It's always high.
If my maxHR is 185, 80% is 148 (185*0.8, unless I'm doing my math wrong). So the 70-80% range would be ~130-148. I routinely ride in the 165 range. For instance, my most recent ride (63 miles, lots of hills), my average HR was 152 and max 182 (avg. cadence was 63, but that includes all time spent coasting, too, so I guess that measures low, since I generally aim to pedal in the 90-95 range, too.). In contrast, I just did 20 minutes on the Concept II tonight (rowing machine, so probably not directly comparable) and my average was 124, max 145. I intend to ride rollers tomorrow night...I'll see how it goes with that.

[Veronica]

Oops.. Sorry for the delay, Raven. I haven't checked this thread in a while.

(avg. cadence was 63, but that includes all time spent coasting, too, so I guess that measures low, since I generally aim to pedal in the 90-95 range, too.).

My HRM doesn't factor in the time spent coasting, are you sure that yours does?

Can you get a graph that shows what your cadence is over time? That would be an easy way to see if it is averaging in the zeros. I wouldn't like it if mine averaged in the zeroes. :p

V.

[7rider]

My HRM doesn't factor in the time spent coasting, are you sure that yours does?

Can you get a graph that shows what your cadence is over time? That would be an easy way to see if it is averaging in the zeros. I wouldn't like it if mine averaged in the zeroes. :p

V.

Yeah, my Garmin allows you to plot cadence over time (or distance), overlaying HR, speed, grade, or a whole bunch of other variables.
Here's a graph of my cadence over time for the ride I mentioned. I imagine it picks up all those "zeros" (I'm not sure how it calculates a negative cadence, however! :confused: ). I guess this means I spend way too much time coasting, eh??

[RoadRaven]

So, if you can't keep your HR low... maybe its just you?
Maybe you just naturally have a higher HR?

I don't know these things.

You seem to have a good cadence going... I find when I mash, my HR goes up now... it was the other way around when I first started cycling.

Spinning would send my HR through the roof - but I have been working specifically on cadence over the past 6 weeks or so because I have finally understood (after two years!!!) the advantage spinning in a race can be...

So now my body is used to, spinning does not push my HR up? Perhaps this has something to do with it? Are you getting your body used to higher cadences?

[7rider]

I guess I just have a high HR on the bike. I can't really see a correlation b/t cadence and HR for me (it's more linked to speed and/or % grade). This past season is really the first season in many years that I've focussed on cadance. Perhaps with more miles, I'll see a link.

[Artisan]

I have a question on max heart rate. Today while running I pushed myself to see how high I could get my heart rate. I got it to 192, but I've never seen that on my road bike. The highest I've seen on the road bike was 185. I talked to a friend today, she told me that she read somewhere that you can't use your running heart rate max for guidelines on your training zones for bike riding, is this correct?

[VeloChick]

Heart rate measurments are guestimates and the 220-age or the woman's 226-age is one that fits only about 1/3 of the population. Also, a higher max heart rate is not a sign of fitness. The heart rate is what it is, in that it's genetically programmed. However, as one trains to get fitter you'll find the ability to work at higher heart rates without going anaerobic.

Also, it has been shown that the heart rate doesn't necessarily decline as one ages as long as you keep aerobically fit. I use a heart rate monitor when I train and I encourage my clients (I'm a personal trainer and Spinning instructor) to use one as well.

Two excellent points. There are still so many myths about HR! The aged based calculcation is a joke. If you max HR works out with this formula, it's really just a coincidence. Your max HR is genetic. You cannot change it. It CAN, however, decline with age in the non-trained athlete.

[VeloChick]

I think I recall reading somewhere that a woman's heart rate is generally ~10 bpm higher than a man's for any given activity (all things considered). Anyone see that same bit o' info? DH has me by 7 years of age, but it's startling how different our HRs are on the same hill.

Your max HR is genetic, and in the trained athlete, it generally does not go down with age. No absolute number is better, or worse than another. The only numbers that really matter are % of MHR. (or % of LT if you've done tests to show your current LT)


I can't swing my leg over a bike without my HR going up to 150 or higher. Highest I've seen for me was 188 (vs. my Polar's "predicted" maxHR from me of 185). To do real training in my 70-80% zone, I could never take the bike out on the road. I'd be forever on the rollers.

Use the highest number you've seen on your HRM for your true MHR (it may even be higher, but never lower). If you cannot train in zones of 70-80% while on the bike, you really need to do more base and aerobic work. You can start this by riding a mtb on the road, and using its much lower gearing to keep your HR down. You can also do more roller work in the low HR zones.

It takes much discipline to keep your HR down, but in the long run, it can pay off big time!

[Crankin]

It's only been recently that i learned that the 220-minus your age formula did not apply to trained people. I stopped wearing my HR monitor a couple of years ago because i was always worried and obsessed over the fact my numbers seemed too high. I think my HR is higher than a lot of others for whatever particular amount of work I am doing, but I have noticed a few things that made me realize that it's probably not any sign of something wrong. First, the older i get, the longer I need to warrm up. I know this is well known, but I don't always like to take the time to do this. I generally feel like crap for the first 20-30 minutes of a ride, unless I am riding really slowly, like 10-13 mph. I always feel like I don't have the time to do this, or if it's a group ride, they always go out fast and then tend to die at the other end (while I move up to the front). Going out fast really raises my HR like crazy. My HR tends to stay around 130-145 during normal riding that is flat with some rollers, at an average of 15-16 mph. It's been like this for most of the time I have been riding. Now 80% of mhr should be around 132 for my age, but it seems like my HR is stuck at the supposed level of someone in their early to mid forties. This is probably what's normal for me. The highest I have seen is around 152 recently, during high cadence drills on the trainer. I guess I am going to start wearing it again and then see what happens when I start climbing big hills outside (like my driveway!). The highest I ever saw my HR was 180, the first time i went for a run, about 4 years ago. The highest I ever saw it on a bike was in a spin class, maybe around the same time and it was 170. My resting HR in the AM is around 55-68, but during the day, it is usually around 68-72. Just walking around raises it pretty high, up into the 80s. I have to really work hard to keep it down when I ride, but I guess that's the way I am!

[Julibird]

I used to think my high MHR used to mean something - like better torque in my engine, but, alas, as previously mentioned, it's just a genenetic thing - not anything to do with fitness. MHR does not change whether one is fit or not. What does change is ones anaerobic threshold - it changes with increased fitness, state of rest and wellness, and is sport specific. Your threshold for running will be different than your cycling AT. So, if you can find out what your AT is, that will be useful information for training with a HR monitor.

Sally Edwards books are a good resource. I also heard she is getting on the power tap training bandwagon and will be coming out with a new book.

Oh well, performance is the best data at the end of the day.

Julie

[CR400]

Ok I know this is an old thread. Don't worry about high heart rate the 194 you talked about is only about 4 beats above LT for me or so the tester claimes. I think it is 194 though. My max is set at 215 but thats only because the heart rate monitor I have won't let me set it higher. I have actually held that 215 for a minuet or slightly more on more then one occasion, doubt it's my max. Resting heart rate 67.

[Geonz]

Hmmm... this thread is so old its heart rate is falling? I'm feeling good about the treats I just dodged, thinking "I'm burning calories now... I'm losing weight..." and then I check my cute HRM watch and it's 47 bpm. Geez... not burning many calories at all... do ya think the student in the computer lab would understand if I suddenly started doing crunches on the floor? :D :D

[smilingcat]

As long as my BPM don't crash to 0 I think I'm fine. :p

Well its interesting that men have lower BPM than women. Something new I learned today.

Thanks,

[CR400]

Correction max is 220. Yeah it took a hard race and not dropping over dead to figure that out. Also my LT is a few beats higher then I thought too.

[Artisan]

Correction max is 220. Yeah it took a hard race and not dropping over dead to figure that out. Also my LT is a few beats higher then I thought too.

Yeah, same here. Last race I did, with lots of hills, my heart rate maxed out at 217.