Max heart rate

Zen Cohen said:

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing.

Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
bit.

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.

Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
exercising under a physician's care: that would be embarrassing.

Quoted message said:

Am I focusing too much on heart rate?

Probably.

My max hr used to be higher when I was racing , now I just turned 50
and its at 201 when I climbed (inline skates) up Trinity Grade to
Oakville outside Santa Rosa Calif (the Tour of California climbed this
on the stage from Santa Rosa to Sacremento a few months ago)

My old coach used to call me "Birdy" (he meant I had a little heart),
my max when on the circuit was 224, and I ran usually about 15 - 20
bpm higher than others.

Even now I can still carry on a half decent conversation at 175bpm.

So I do LSD workouts at 148 - 153, and when I do intervals at 90%
effort it drops to 120 125 fairly quickly... for the first 5
intervals that is...

I have 84% slow twitch (based on the core sample from 1983).

Don't know if muscle fiber changes with age.. everything else seems
to!

Quoted message said:

Zen Cohen said:

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing.

Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
bit.

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.

Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
exercising under a physician's care: that would be embarrassing.

Quoted message said:

Am I focusing too much on heart rate?

Probably.

My max hr used to be higher when I was racing , now I just turned 50
and i saw 201 when I climbed (inline skates) up Trinity Grade to
Oakville outside Santa Rosa Calif (the Tour of California climbed this
on the stage from Santa Rosa to Sacremento) a few months ago)

My old coach used to call me "Birdy" (he meant I had a little heart),
my max in the old days when on the racing circuit was 224, and I ran
usually about 15 - 20 bpm higher than others. (I only saw this in the
lab tho)

Even now I can still carry on a half decent conversation at 175bpm.

So I do LSD workouts at 148 - 153, and when I do intervals at 90%
effort it drops to 120 125 fairly quickly... for the first 5
intervals that is...

I have 84% slow twitch (based on the core sample from 1983).

Don't know if muscle fiber changes with age.. everything else seems
to!

I notice that my speed gets faster at the same hr's , depending on
point in the training program.

Quoted message said:

Zen Cohen said:

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say max
HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max HR if
I keep pushing.

Increasing fitness often leads to (slightly) decreased MHR. That's cuz
total cardiac output is a function both of how fast your heart beats
and also the volume of blood pumped per beat. As your heart becomes
more "fit", your volume increases so fewer beats can end up moving
more blood. Conversely, if you stop exercising and sit on your butt
watching TV and eating nachos, you may find that your MHR increases a
bit.

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.

Not exactly. The 80% MHR rule was originally set up for patients with
ischemia to define a margin of safety so they wouldn't drop dead while
exercising under a physician's care: that would be embarrassing.

Quoted message said:

Am I focusing too much on heart rate?

Probably.

On Mon, 28 May 2007 23:21:15 -0700, "Zen Cohen" <[email hidden]>

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 go as intensely as I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my
presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or
good articles that address this?

Yes. See Ultrafit.com among many, many others.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
Zen Cohen <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of
a bad knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. 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 150-160 for the entire session. Still nowhere close to
where I was before but definitely have improved.

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts
say max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to
higher max HR if I keep pushing. 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 go as intensely as
I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for
sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or good articles
that address this? Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My goal is
not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems they're
interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.

Geezer advice : your body is unique, and you get points, in racing, for
crossing the line before others. If you have outgrown comparing your
personal physical beauty to others, it's time to give up on your quest to
model your cardiac life after other, too. Work withink your physical
universe, take limits a little seriously, providing you want to ride another
mile. Watch the Giro for heart rate graphs - different elite riders at
different rates, including the verified maxima.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

Either way, all else being equal, your max heart rate will decrease with
age.

"Zen Cohen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of a bad
knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. 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 150-160
for the entire session. Still nowhere close to where I was before but
definitely have improved.

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts say
max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to higher max
HR if I keep pushing. 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 go as intensely as I can stand it (usually
90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for sustained periods). Anybody know of
any research or good articles that address this? Am I focusing too much on
heart rate? My goal is not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems
they're interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers,
appreciated.

Mike said:

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

Most people should ignore this formula.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Mike said:

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

Most people should ignore this formula.

Yes it would make mine 133!
Although Charly Wegelius was climbing at 12% 25bpm yesterday - or
perhaps the computer was wrong :-))

Mike said:

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

You mean 220 - age. But yes, useless for accurate individual
predictions.

--
E. Dronkert

On 5/30/07 6:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Dan

Gregory said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Mike said:

There is a rough formula: 200 minus your age = max heart rate.
For some this is not acurate. For others (myself included) this is spot on.

Most people should ignore this formula.

Yes it would make mine 133!
Although Charly Wegelius was climbing at 12% 25bpm yesterday - or
perhaps the computer was wrong :-))

The formula that should be ignored is (220 - age); not (200 - age) ... Well,
that one should be ignored, too, but I've never seen it put forward as a
remotely valid formula.

220 - age sets my MaxHR at 179 ... I know I've gotten it as high as 185, but
I thought I was going to die when I did; my lungs and heart usually start
stressing when I go above 172/173.

So if 185 is my actual max (based on experience), then the 172/173 puts me
about 93% of max.

And generally, if I'm feeling good, if I keep my HR around 165/166 (~90%
max), then I can maintain that level of work quite sometime.

Problem is that my HR shoots up right away, and I'm not very fast anywhere
in there, unless gravity is helping me downhill.

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot flahute dot com [foreword] slash

Sandy said:

Dans le message denews:[email hidden],
Zen Cohen <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

Quoted message said:

I used to run a lot in my 30s and my heart rate would normally reach
somewhere in the 180-200 BPM range. I laid off for a few years bc of
a bad knee, gained too much weight, and now cycle for cardio. 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 150-160 for the entire session. Still nowhere close to
where I was before but definitely have improved.

Quoted message said:

Wondering whether, at age 48, this is about all I can expect (charts
say max HR at this age is in the mid-170s) or can I keep getting to
higher max HR if I keep pushing. 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 go as intensely as
I can stand it (usually 90%-plus of my presumptive max HR for
sustained periods). Anybody know of any research or good articles
that address this? Am I focusing too much on heart rate? My goal is
not higher max HR but to go faster. Still, seems they're
interrelated. Comments/thoughts, esp from middle-agers, appreciated.

Geezer advice : your body is unique, and you get points, in racing, for
crossing the line before others. If you have outgrown comparing your
personal physical beauty to others, it's time to give up on your quest to
model your cardiac life after other, too. Work withink your physical
universe, take limits a little seriously, providing you want to ride another
mile. Watch the Giro for heart rate graphs - different elite riders at
different rates, including the verified maxima.

You have to admit that it seems unusual for a lawyer to be offering
free and good advice.....

On May 30, 5:29 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 5/30/07 6:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Dan

220 - age sets my MaxHR at 179 ... I know I've gotten it as high as 185, but
I thought I was going to die when I did; my lungs and heart usually start
stressing when I go above 172/173.

That formula is for finding the maximum effective heart rate for a
person. It actually works pretty well if you're physically fit. If you
are starting an exercise regime you'd probably show higher heart rates
since your heart capacity is probably low and it tries to make up for
it with more pumps per minute.

Quoted message said:

So if 185 is my actual max (based on experience), then the 172/173 puts me
about 93% of max.

So that suggests you aren't in good enough shape yet OR that you have
a heart condition that should be looked into. Anothe clue is if it
takes more than a minute or two for your heart rate to fall from near
max to almost rest rates of under 100.

Quoted message said:

And generally, if I'm feeling good, if I keep my HR around 165/166 (~90%
max), then I can maintain that level of work quite sometime.

What do you mean by "sometime"? Most people can hold 90% for perhaps
an hour or so The better the shape you're in the higher percentage you
can hold for longer. But once you get over VO2max it doesn't matter
how good a shape you're in - you have a strictly limited time counted
in seconds.

Quoted message said:

Problem is that my HR shoots up right away, and I'm not very fast anywhere
in there, unless gravity is helping me downhill.

You're still young though and you have the ability to improve quite
measureably. But you'll have to ride more and more often.

The problem is that most people have more life than riding.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

On May 30, 5:29 am, "Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 5/30/07 6:09 AM, in article [email hidden], "Dan

220 - age sets my MaxHR at 179 ... I know I've gotten it as high as 185, but
I thought I was going to die when I did; my lungs and heart usually start
stressing when I go above 172/173.

That formula is for finding the maximum effective heart rate for a
person. It actually works pretty well if you're physically fit. If you
are starting an exercise regime you'd probably show higher heart rates
since your heart capacity is probably low and it tries to make up for
it with more pumps per minute.

It's just a guess, has no real scientific or statistical basis
and for many people is useless. I can hold a conversation at my
maximum HR according to that formula. The only way to know your
maximum heart is to test it and the test is very stressful. But
maximum HR is not very useful, lactate threshold is a lot more
useful for training and a lot less stressful to find out. Plus
your lacate threshold can be effected by training, whereas your
MHR generally can't.

_ Booker C. Bense

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

220 - age

That formula has about as much validity as 98.6F. That is, it's bogus. Do a literature search for age-dependence of max HR. The best fit cofficient is actually substantially less than 1/min/year. But there's so much scatter in the data, and there's so many confounding factors, better just to measure it, and forget about formulas.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So if 185 is my actual max (based on experience), then the 172/173 puts me
about 93% of max.

% of max actually isn't the best metric. Better is:

(HR - HRmin) / (HRmax - HRmin)

where HRmin is resting HR.

Dan

Tom Kunich said:

[220-age] actually works pretty well if you're physically fit.

The guy who developed the formula would disagree with you:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/24/health/24TRAI.html?searchpv=site07

(If you can't get that, a little summary of the relevant part is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/17859bdb288329c8
)

Booker C. Bense said:

The only way to know your
maximum heart is to test it and the test is very stressful. But
maximum HR is not very useful, lactate threshold is a lot more
useful for training and a lot less stressful to find out. Plus
your lacate threshold can be effected by training, whereas your
MHR generally can't.

_ Booker C. Bense

Submaximum heart rate tests are available that aren't too stressful.
Their accuracy is not as good as a MHR test but much better than the
220-age estimate. They're commonly offered by health clubs and the like.

Best answer yet!

Quoted message said:

Geezer advice : your body is unique, and you get points, in racing, for
crossing the line before others. If you have outgrown comparing your
personal physical beauty to others, it's time to give up on your quest to
model your cardiac life after other, too. Work withink your physical
universe, take limits a little seriously, providing you want to ride another
mile. Watch the Giro for heart rate graphs - different elite riders at
different rates, including the verified maxima.
--
Bonne route !

Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

Geraard Spergen said:

Submaximum heart rate tests are available that aren't too stressful.
Their accuracy is not as good as a MHR test but much better than the
220-age estimate.

Accuracy for what isn't as good? For estimating MHR? So what?

IF someone wants to use HR for training, they should go out whe
they're feeling really good and see what their HR is when they are
riding at their goal pace for whatever event they are preparing for.
And then they can pace training around that, trying to go faster and
faster at that same HR.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************