What IS maximum heart rate?

[Mr. Bloom]

Great feedback...Thanks.

I guess as they say on Monty Python..."I'm not dead yet!"

[Veronica]

That's a reasonable formula and a good place to start Although it puts my top end about twenty beats lower than it really is and below the testing I had done a couple of years ago at the U C Davis Sports Medicine Clinic.

I wonder if it is less accurate for people with low resting pulses.

V.

[indysteel]

I'm no expert on this, but I'd throw out the following tidbits of information that I've picked up from my own reading on the subject. Your max heartrate is genetically determined. In other words, it is what it is. It goes down a bit as you age, but if you're in good shape and train regularly, the decrease will likely be slight. The various methods of estimating your max HR are all rough at best. If you really want to know what it is, you must have it tested in a controlled environment, say at your gym, or do a field test. Even then, however, factors such as fatigue and hydration can affect your results. Aerobic training will not increase your max heart rate. What it will do is change your level of perceived exertion and allow to trainer harder and longer--assuming you have no underlying cardiac or pulminary problems.

I bought an HRM last year and have seen it go as high as 220 during a climb. This struck me as really high and a number of people--including some instructors at my gym--made the inaccurate comment that I must be in good shape. My shape, I explained, had nothing to do with it. In any event, at one point, I had plans to do a max heartrate test at my gym but after reading enough material suggesting that knowing the precise number isn't necessary for training purposes, I decided to forego it. Instead, I use my level of perceived exertion as a better guide to whether I am in the "zone" that I want to be in. I haven't been wearing my HRM this season but can say that I get far less out of my comfort zone on climbs/sprints than I used to and it takes me less time to recover from a hard effort.

[Andrea]

As a grad student in Exercise & Sport Science, I can assure you that what everyone's said here is true about the inaccuracy of 220-age. That's really only a prediction- if you took everyone in the world and put them through a maximal exercise test, you'd most often find that they're within 5 or so BPM of 220-age.

When you start dealing with people who aren't "normal" is when that formula gets thrown out the window. Athletes and others who choose to maintain a higher fitness level than their sedentary counterparts will not experience the same decline in maximum heart rate as other people- it IS going to go down as you get older, but the rate of decline just isn't as fast.

The best way to measure what your max heart rate really is is to go to an exercise testing lab. Typically, in our human performance lab at University of Memphis, we'll put someone on a treadmill and perform a maximal exercise test. During the test, we measure VO2max, lactate threshold, and use an EKG to monitor heartrate. You can have a maximal test performed at a doctor's office or cardiac clinic, but they'll usually only gather EKG information in that type of setting (VO2max and lactate threshold are more along the lines of performance-related data rather than health related).

This information is most useful to people who want to form a detailed training program and/or want to monitor how their fitness changes in resonse to a training program.

[GLC1968]

Lots of interesting information posted here!

I'd like to point out one additional piece of info... While your max HR will not change with increased fitness, your resting HR can be lowered AND the speed at which your HR recovers from exertion can be improved.

When I first started HR training (ages ago...long before I picked up cycling), I was getting frustrated because while everyone else I knew frequently over-shot their estimated max's, I couldn't even come close. I frequently could barely maintain in my 75% target range. I thought there was something wrong with me! Turns out, 220-age is pretty close to spot on for me. BUT, except when biking, it is very, very difficult for me to get my HR into my training zones. I have a resting rate in the 40's, so apparently, I have a pretty strong heart that due to body issues (bad feet), I was unable to effectively challenge it. This is the primary reason I picked up cycling.


Those with more knowledge about this subject than me...I have a question. Is there a disadvantage to having a smaller workable 'window' than most? If my resting is say 44 and my max is 181, then that only leaves me with 137 beats to work with. Many people have much larger ranges (say 55 to 215 = 160). Is there an advantage either way? (not that I can really change this...I'm just curious)

[Zen]

As long as mine continues to beat I'm satisfied.

[indysteel]

The best way to measure what your max heart rate really is is to go to an exercise testing lab. Typically, in our human performance lab at University of Memphis, we'll put someone on a treadmill and perform a maximal exercise test. During the test, we measure VO2max, lactate threshold, and use an EKG to monitor heartrate. You can have a maximal test performed at a doctor's office or cardiac clinic, but they'll usually only gather EKG information in that type of setting (VO2max and lactate threshold are more along the lines of performance-related data rather than health related).

Andrea, perhaps you can answer this, too. I've read a number of times that your max heartrate varies from sport to sport. Is that true and if it is, how then do you account for that when doing a lab test if, say, you want to know what your max HR for cycling is?

Thanks,

K-

[Andrea]

Your max values for cycling (both HR and VO2max) tend to be approximately 85% of what you see if you're running. That's because cycling involves slightly fewer muscles than running, and, with more resistance on the pedals, will make you accumulate lactic acid faster than if you're running.

Usually, the better cyclist you are, the closer you can get to your running maxes, but it's rare to be able to achieve a true max on a bike. Ideally, you'd do a max test running and follow it up with a max test on a stationary bike (provided the lab has a stationary bike that's got somewhat of a road bike geometry rather than an upright one) within 5-10 days of each other so you could get your true max as well as your functional capacity for your sport.

If you have a small working "window" for heartrate, then you'd benefit from lactate threshold testing (everyone can, actually). That way, you can focus some of your training sessions on pushing that level up to a higher percentage of your maximum work capacity.

[Grog]

Your max values for cycling (both HR and VO2max) tend to be approximately 85% of what you see if you're running. That's because cycling involves slightly fewer muscles than running, and, with more resistance on the pedals, will make you accumulate lactic acid faster than if you're running.

That's funny, it's been the other way for me. It took me a long time before I could reach up to 200 running, whereas it happens to me all the time when cycling.

[GLC1968]

If you have a small working "window" for heartrate, then you'd benefit from lactate threshold testing (everyone can, actually). That way, you can focus some of your training sessions on pushing that level up to a higher percentage of your maximum work capacity.

Thanks, Andrea!

That is kind of what I thought. I've had some estimates done (using a treadmill) and my lactate threshold came out pretty close to my max already. The trainer I worked with said this was highly unusual except in elite athletes or in those who are genetically gifted for CV capacity. I definitely don't fall into the first category, but I'm going to consider real testing before I feel comfortable actually placing myself in the second group!