Max heart rate

Zen Cohen said:

I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range.

Was this your max heart rate or easy effort (can talk in complete
sentences) or comfortably hard (talk in phrases) or ...?

Quoted message said:

I laid off for a few years bc of a bad
knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio.

Many (most?) people usually have a lower max hr for cycling vs running
(at least by usual protocols). (I used to be able to hit close to the
same readings for mtn biking on steep hills and running.)

Quoted message said:

At first, I could
only reach about 150 BPM before getting exhausted. Six months later, and
much more fit, I get to about 173 for intervals and average about 155-160
for the entire session. Still nowhere close to where I was before but
definitely have improved.

What I'm wondering is whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect
(charts say max HR at this age is in the 170s)

Most stuff that I've seen assume a drop of about 1 bpm per year, but if
you exercise, that drop will be less.

Quoted message said:

or can I keep getting to
higher max HR if I keep pushing.

Are you only using cycling to test for max HR? Have you tested for a
running max hr? What protocols are you using? Some people can raise
their max hr through lots of exercise, but these are usually elite level
or those with similar levels of training (always some exceptions). And
this is usually on the order of a few bpm, iirc (could be wrong, but at
most 10bpm probably), which may be "noise."

Quoted message said:

Also I've heard that I should exercise at
about 80% of max HR and that going above that for sustained periods can be
detrimental. I prefer to exercise as intensely as I can stand it and usually
get into 90%-plus of my presumptive max HR.

What are your goals? To be "fit," to lose weight, to win ag in races,
....? (ok, you explain goals later)

FWIW, I tend to do most of my running at about 65% hrr (75% max hr).
When I push, I go to 80-85% hrr (85-92% max hr). For *my* purposes, I
rarely go above that (except in race), since I'm mostly interested in
aerobic benefits. YMMV.

Quoted message said:

Anybody know of any good
research that addresses this?

I like the chart that Martin and Coe have in their book on "Better
Training for Distance Runners." It shows the benefits to exercising in
the various heart rate zones - capillaries, mitochondria, stroke volume,
etc. It's better documented than most treatments of heart rate zones,
i.e. may address your question of "research." (too big a table to insert
here)

For a simple online table, I like the following
http://ipb001.ipagedemo.com/users/28255/downloads/135%20Table%20A.pdf
which has related information on this page
http://www.coachbenson.com/m_47.asp

I match the "% of effort" column (Karvonen, heart rate reserve) with the
"Perceived Exertion" column. Better yet, just match the "Perceived
Exertion" with the "Reasons" column.

Quoted message said:

Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My goal
is not higher max HR but to go faster/farther. Still, seems they're
interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.

Yes. Heart rate is one tool to monitor intensity, but you can probably
use breathing just as easily - maybe more easily (see chart above). You
really need to understand the role that efforts in the various ranges
provide (see above book). That is, you need to build aerobic base first
(can you talk?). Yes, lower efforts can provide more of certain benefits
than higher efforts. Higher efforts have their benefits. There's a
gradient of benefits which peak at various intensities, so all
intensities have benefits.

You could use a training pgm built on time and intensity (breathing) to
go farther then faster.

By "faster", are you looking to be age-group competitive and "farther"
are you thinking like 10k's, marathons, or ultras, ...? Since you posted
this in a running newsgroup, I'm assuming you're asking about running,
even though your current exercise seems to be cycling (stationary?) - or
maybe I missed something. Or are you asking about cycling?

Here's a couple other hr pages that might provide more information than
Benson's for some things:
http://www.brianmac.demon.co.uk/hrm1.htm
http://www.runningforfitness.org/calc/hrzones.php?
http://www.runnersworld.co.uk/news/article.asp?UAN=176

I was older than you are now when I started (mid 50s), so I'm not sure
any changes I've seen would be relevant to your question.😉 (Actually,
I'm still using the same max hr as I did 6 yr ago when I started, but
it's much harder to get close to max or I'm getting lazy or both, so it
might be a little lower now or underestimated then, but negligible
effect on "zones." I have lowered my "easy" zone as I've gotten more
economic and can run at lower hr now.)

I hope that helps some.

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml

Max heart rate can never truly be measured until you literally jog
yourself to death.

Then you subtract one.

Zen Cohen said:

What I'm wondering is whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect

No, you can expect a mylo cardio infarction too.

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zen Cohen said:

I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range.

Was this your max heart rate or easy effort (can talk in complete
sentences) or comfortably hard (talk in phrases) or ...?

I usually ran alone but I prolly wouldn't have been able to speak more than
a coupla words at a time.

.....

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Anybody know of any good research that addresses this?

I like the chart that Martin and Coe have in their book on "Better
Training for Distance Runners." It shows the benefits to exercising in the
various heart rate zones - capillaries, mitochondria, stroke volume, etc.
It's better documented than most treatments of heart rate zones, i.e. may
address your question of "research." (too big a table to insert here)

For a simple online table, I like the following
http://ipb001.ipagedemo.com/users/28255/downloads/135%20Table%20A.pdf
which has related information on this page
http://www.coachbenson.com/m_47.asp

Thanks. Coach Benson's page is bookmarked.

Quoted message said:

...

Quoted message said:

By "faster", are you looking to be age-group competitive and "farther" are
you thinking like 10k's, marathons, or ultras, ...? Since you posted this
in a running newsgroup, I'm assuming you're asking about running, even
though your current exercise seems to be cycling (stationary?) - or maybe
I missed something. Or are you asking about cycling?

Well, I posted in the running group partly because it was the best group I
could find for discussion of aerobic fitness (yes, it's better than the
nearly dead aerobic fitness ng), and because I used to run and I miss it.
But my knee is too messed up to run anymore so barring a major medical
breakthrough for repairing knees, running again is just wishful thinking.
(But now that I've moved to southern California, the biking is a lot more
inviting than it was in my old home of Houston.)
.....

Quoted message said:

I was older than you are now when I started (mid 50s), so I'm not sure any
changes I've seen would be relevant to your question.😉 (Actually, I'm
still using the same max hr as I did 6 yr ago when I started, but it's
much harder to get close to max or I'm getting lazy or both, so it might
be a little lower now or underestimated then, but negligible effect on
"zones." I have lowered my "easy" zone as I've gotten more economic and
can run at lower hr now.)

I hope that helps some.

Dot

It does. Thanks for taking the time to write such an informative response.

Zen Cohen said:

"Dot" <dot.h@#duh?att.net> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Zen Cohen said:

I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range.

Was this your max heart rate or easy effort (can talk in complete
sentences) or comfortably hard (talk in phrases) or ...?

I usually ran alone but I prolly wouldn't have been able to speak more than
a coupla words at a time.

I'm guessing it would've been near LT or a little above, but not max.
(When I get near what I think is max, I can't even think about trying to
say anything, and feel like I'm going to start seeing starts.)

For normal training, you probably wouldn't want to workout at that high
an effort. And on a bike, it would be probably be less.
....

Quoted message said:

Well, I posted in the running group partly because it was the best group I
could find for discussion of aerobic fitness (yes, it's better than the
nearly dead aerobic fitness ng), and because I used to run and I miss it.
But my knee is too messed up to run anymore so barring a major medical
breakthrough for repairing knees, running again is just wishful thinking.
(But now that I've moved to southern California, the biking is a lot more
inviting than it was in my old home of Houston.)

I'd just go by breathing and enjoy the biking. I wouldn't worry about
heart rates. Explore new routes. Work the hills. Maybe try mtn biking if
you haven't already. That'll definitely get your heart working.

Enjoy!

Dot

--
"The goal is training and adaptation, not destruction and injury."
- John Hardy
http://www.mountainrunning.coolrunning.com.au/misc/training.shtml