Does this max HR sound possible?

While not theoretically impossible I would say that the likelihood of your having a max heart rate above 230 is FAR LESS than the possibility that some interference (overhead powerlines, etc) caused your HRM to read erroneously.

--Steve

if you didn't feel overly taxed or "about to pass out" then I would presume the reading was wrong. Anything could have happened, and if your Max reading is stored on your HR in the same manner as Max Speed on your trusty computer, then it would be impossible to determine when it happened.
There have been some occasions when my HRM would say 80 bpm when I know I am at about double of that, and I reposition the transmitter on my chest and within about 3 seconds it registers like 168 or something so I figure it has only counted half the heartbeats due to insufficient contact.

scott.475 said:

Does 230 even sound plausible? Or could riding over train tracks or other rough surfaces caused this reading? I am going to be totally shocked if that is a true max HR, I was really expecting to see something in the id 190s.

Possible? Yes. Likely this was a true reading? Probably not.
Here's some other questions to consider.

If your body actually produced the reading:
[INDENT]Should we assume that you are 26 years old? (220-your age)
What are the highest HR numbers that you've previously recorded?
Any history of tachycardia?
Were you dehydrated or very fatigued prior to the ride?
Any recent illness, especially with fever?[/INDENT]

If your HR monitor picked up some erroneous signals (most likely, non-physiological causes for the reading):
[INDENT]Were you riding near high tension electrial lines?
Were riding near other sources of radio / electrial interference? A cell tower perhaps?[/INDENT]

During really hard training rides, I have experienced some abnormally high readings as well. I can't really say what the cause was (at first it was a wireless computer that I swapped with a wired to remove the interference). So IMO the 230 HR was an erroneous reading. Heart reate monitors are accurate but I don't think they would be as accurate as something such as a medical grade EKG machine.

Was this with a Polar HRM?

Definitely interference...

scott.475 said:

Does 230 even sound plausible?

I guess the underlying question is should you consider it as your max HR in building up your training zones?

Simple answer : if you can repeat it then yes. If you can't then no.

SolarEnergy said:

I guess the underlying question is should you consider it as your max HR in building up your training zones?

Simple answer : if you can repeat it then yes. If you can't then no.

:eek:

Attempts to repeat such a HR may have severe physiological risks (read: death) if consideration is not given to the underlying cause(s) of the 230. Extreme caution is in order until the basis of the questionable reading is determined. If you have any concern for your health, then it is faulty logic to blow off the possiblities of physiological origins.

notruthless said:

:eek:

Attempts to repeat such a HR may have severe physiological risks (read: death) if consideration is not given to the underlying cause(s) of the 230. Extreme caution is in order until the basis of the questionable reading is determined. If you have any concern for your health, then it is faulty logic to blow off the possiblities of physiological origins.

I understand your concern, but everyone is different.

I am sure my max hr will scare you... 206 @ 40 yo (repeated several times)

So much for 220 - age...

I am sure that the hr that I can hold for 1 hour will have you telling me the same thing. 186 avg

A number is just that, a number...

I had a stress test performed last year. During the interview beforehand, when discussing my training routine with a nurse, she kept telling me how if I took my hr over 170, I would die. (Kinda like "Freaks and Geeks"...) Yet, when I did the stress test, the doctor allowed me to take the test as far as I wanted. I got bored and stopped after 21 minutes with my hr in the mid 190's. I am extremely lucky that my physician is also a cyclist... 😄

BTW I think the 230 hr that the OP saw was probably interference... It *really* takes a lot of effort to get the hr over 200... I think they would have known it.

Jim

At least Polar HRM shows often values like 220 or 230 (it is repeatable 🙂 ) due to interference from electric power lines or just the shirt flapping in the wind. Just keep on eye what the HRM shows on top of the hills and you probably get the idea what is your max HR during your training ride.

very highly unlikely.. especially if 1) as others have said you haven't seen numbers close to this before (10 bpm)... just looking down at you bike computer under lots of strain and 2) you hadn't done a huge effort.. my maxHR is 205 (38 years old... 220-age is complete BS) but this is achieved only when i do something like ride a hill hard then stand up and torque it really good for the last 200-300m... as in a hill top sprint... you'll know you did something special when you actually hit your maxHR

Thanks for all the responses...I did not think this was likely. I am using a Blackburn computer, by the way. I don't think I actually hit my max on that ride, and I really did not think I hit 230. Next time I am in Bend, I'll have to check for causes of interference.

otb4evr said:

I understand your concern, but everyone is different.

I am sure my max hr will scare you... 206 @ 40 yo (repeated several times)

So much for 220 - age...

I am sure that the hr that I can hold for 1 hour will have you telling me the same thing. 186 avg

A number is just that, a number...

Correct, everyone's max HR and sustainable levels are relative to that person.

No, not scared at all by your HR values, because you have a historical basis for your HR and confirmation via medical exam. I too have a high HR max compared to age estimated max and have struck fear in nurses who got "unusually low" resting HR's. The 220-age reference was related to how the OP came up with an estimated HR max and an effort to determine some background info on the OP. We have no background info from the OP and in particular, no health / fitness level info. It's not improbable that the OP weighs 350#'s, has LDL's over 300 and has a genetic cardiac pre-disposition. We have no method of determining where the 230 came from based on the info provided, but to suggest trying to repeat it is amiss until the potential sources are ruled out.

SolarEnergy said:

I guess the underlying question is should you consider it as your max HR in building up your training zones?

Simple answer : if you can repeat it then yes. If you can't then no.