Max Heart rate

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ABogoni
I am 17 years old and have a Max Heart rate of 208, but I’ve heard some people say they have a max of around 240. I wouldn’t mind knowing if that is actually possible or if these people are talking [censored].

Uhhh... I could be wrong, but don't you figure max heart rate by subtracting your age from 230? If so, those people would be -10 yrs old! I don't know, man. 240 is a pretty high rate. Any physicians opinions out there?

Theoretically its 220- age in years but its a rough guide only and the guys who came up with the formula said so themselves.

240 seems improbable but over 200 for people in their 20s and 30s seems relatively common.

only about a week ago i thought my MHR was around 235, as i would regularly hit 230-232 on a maximal sprint after a prolonged (20 minute), hard climb. as of thursday, however, i now think it closer to 240 as my HR twice hit 237 in a sprint training session.

go figure.....

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by dorkpants
only about a week ago i thought my MHR was around 235, as i would regularly hit 230-232 on a maximal sprint after a prolonged (20 minute), hard climb. as of thursday, however, i now think it closer to 240 as my HR twice hit 237 in a sprint training session.

go figure.....

Sounds like false reading to me how old are you? my hrt monitor freaks out some times from interferance from powerlines cell phone towers ect.

23 yo... not false readings. i do get false readings from being under power lines, next to accelerating buses etc, but all these sprint MHR results are reproduceable and conducted in a national park area with no cars and no power lines. i can reproduce similar (over 230) readings on any given sprint, providing i'm feeling reasonably strong that day.

According to the book I used in a diet and exercise class I took 2 years ago, the formula for your max heart rate (MHR) is 220-age = BPM (beats per minue). I took it when I was 23 and I have 197 filled in as my BPM at the time.

It also has an MHR Method showing a 65% training intensity = bpm x 0.65 = bpm. Mine was 197x.065=128.05 and at 90% bpm x .90 it was 173 showing my target heart rate should be 128.05-177.3 bpm. I don't know if that helps any or not...

My MHR is about 211bpm, I am 22. I'm pretty sure it's near my maximum cos my vision went blurry. It is interesting to note that I have the same maximum as Brad McGee (he's 26 I think - tell me if I'm wrong) ie:taking notice of the 220-age formula is asking for big discrepancies. EVERYBODY IS DIFFERENT.
Besides, knowing your maximum is not as important as knowing your lactic threshold.

definately tafi!,
your max doesnt matter. its your power at LT and where your LT is.

abolutely... besides being interesting, it really makes bugger all difference

that is a crazy high heart rate. your heart beats 4 times per second, damn.
you humming bird

Max heart rate (and for that matter, resting HR) is very individual. It has to do with your physical shape and genetics.
the formula 220-age is more of a guide line and a CYA formula for Gyms and Doctors. So if you train hard and suffer a heart attack they can say, "See? I told you not to go over ((220-age)*65%)".. 🙂

I am 51 yrs old, and if I would follow this formula I will never get of the couch... When I climb a hill, and it is toward the end of a long ride, my heart rate could reach 195 and stay there for 10 minutes...

I do know a thing or two about heart rates. The whole thing on 220 - age is like everyone has said a guid line. One must adjust for how well in shape one is in, approx. about 10 to 20% adjustment. I'm 31 with a max of 189 but have adjusted it to 195. For someone to reach 240 and sustain it for any period what so ever is asking for trouble. Although you may be able to do it that doesn't mean that its good for you.

Once your heart reaches a certain threashold like you body it begins to see changes. Your heart at that rate is unable to properly deliver oxygen to you vital organs and after a few minutes you begin to experience some things you might not like. One example is called sustained V-Tach or Ventricular Tachicardia which the only way to get one out of it is by delivering a shock to the patient while they are still contious. (not pretty) You also have to deal with the electrical impulses in the heart that at that rate will eventually get confused and probably kill you.

Although it can be done it is highly not recommended to go to that extreme. If you speak to any doctor they will advise of the same.

my uncle is 48 and he gets his hr to 210 220-240 is ok and for the guy who say that 200 + is asking for troble what is the difference max is max i guess you never sprint in a race

As I understand it. You cannot damage your heart by taking it to the max.
If your heart reaches 220, thats your max, and you can work your zone out from that.
I am 46, and according to the 220- age formula, my max should be 174. In fact it is 193.
High max heart rate has no relation to levels of fitness.
Resting heart rate is much more important.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by nickwill
As I understand it. You cannot damage your heart by taking it to the max.

That is assuming you have verified that you have a normal functioning heart.

The general guideline of 220 minus age is for men and as many have stated, will only give you a general idea. Women should use 226 minus age since a female's heart is generally a bit smaller than a male's in proportion to overall body mass.

Again, as many have stated, maximum heart rate will vary among different people of different ages but I'm not sure that some people aren't missing the point. The heart, being a muscle will grow as it is exercized. A larger heart will have a larger capacity and will therefore move more blood per beat. That's why Lance Armstrong has a resting heart rate of 32 and a few pro-cyclists have resting heart rates slightly lower than that. Others who may be just as strong may have resting heart rates in the low 50s. The more you exercise your heart, the slower it will need to beat to meet a given demand for oxygen.

I've also heard that beyond a certain point, the heart may continue to beat faster but it will actually lose pumping efficiency because it fails to fill to capacity before contracting again. You'll probably begin to feel just a little sick and noticeably weaker if you push to that point but I suspect most of us have probably done this for short periods of time before backing down to recover.

As an interesting side-note, (okay, I find it interesting. It might put you to sleep), I notice that when I get in a good month and ride almost every day, after the first 2 weeks or so, my maximum heart rate will drop from around 180 to under 175. When I have been off the bike for a while and try to do a long climb, I may see heart rates around 196 for short periods of time, especially in warmer weather. Wind always drops my heart rate, my speed and my resolve.

greg welch used to compete in some events with his heart rate around 230, and in one of his last races he had his up to over 300 bpm, but that was of course because of a disease that he has

Quoted post said:

As an interesting side-note, (okay, I find it interesting. It might put you to sleep), I notice that when I get in a good month and ride almost every day, after the first 2 weeks or so, my maximum heart rate will drop from around 180 to under 175. When I have been off the bike for a while and try to do a long climb, I may see heart rates around 196 for short periods of time, especially in warmer weather. Wind always drops my heart rate, my speed and my resolve. [/B]

I've read research articles (try the Polar website) that indicates that in a 'well rested' state your MaxHR is easier to achieve and conversely so when you are not, which could explain the differences 😎

Forget about 220-age, its much too inaccurate.

I use 208-0.7xage based on research by Tanaka et al which may be found at:
Tanaka H, Monahan KD, Seals DR: Age-predicted maximal heart rate revisited. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001;37(1)153-156

Or, if you dont have access to this journal a good review is at
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/2001/07_01/jul01news

Well worth a read.

regards

Muzza