Max HR for hill climbing vs sprint finish

[Dirty Digger]

Would like peoples opinion please.

On the w/e I did my first criterium club race. 40 mins + 3 laps of a 1.4
km course. Found the pace (av. of 38.3 kph) fast but OK and going in to the
last bend/straight found myself boxed in a a little for the sprint, but
still managed a 7th place out of 25 on my inaugral race, so was very happy
Just after going through the finish line I noticed that my HR monitor was
showing 183 for HR. Now my HRmax for bike has been consistently 178 for 12
months and I recently 'popped' 179 while bridging over hills in a road race,
but 183 is way higher. A look at the Polar PPP graph and data (see below) for the last bit of the race shows that the 183 came immediately after the finish line, which would make sense given the 5 sec lag in recording, and then started to drop in a normal manner.
It doesn't look like a (electrical external) 'spike' and there were no others
in the file and the race area was free of power lines etc. So is it a new HRmax? Seems quite a jump from 179 to 183? But there again, I have never quite wound myself up for a big sprint finish like a crit before. Is it different
to flogging yourself on hills etc?
FYI, my HRmax for running is 183.
Thanks,
Dirty Digger

Time HR Speed Cadence Distance
0:46:05 172 45.9 125 29.257
0:46:10 173 45.0 112 29.320
0:46:15 173 47.2 130 29.386
0:46:20 176 47.4 113 29.452
0:46:25 177 47.3 114 29.518
0:46:30 178 46.4 111 29.582
0:46:35 178 49.2 120 29.650
0:46:40 178 53.1 127 29.724
0:46:45 179 53.9 122 29.799
0:46:50 179 52.7 123 29.872 FINISH LINE
0:46:55 183 40.1 0 29.928
0:47:00 178 29.1 0 29.968

 

[frenchyge]

Couple thoughts:
1) I have occasionally seen spikes when I suddenly let off after a big effort. Even worse is when I sit up at the same time.
2) It usually takes me 2-3 minutes of max effort, with a sprint at the end, to reach MHR. I would not expect to even reach it during a relatively short sprint at the end of a crit.

 

[Dirty Digger]

Couple thoughts:
1) I have occasionally seen spikes when I suddenly let off after a big effort. Even worse is when I sit up at the same time.

That was what I did, so possible

2) It usually takes me 2-3 minutes of max effort, with a sprint at the end, to reach MHR. I would not expect to even reach it during a relatively short sprint at the end of a crit.

The pace (and my HR) started to heat up for the last 2 laps (= 3-4 mins), so much so that I went in to the c. 300 m sprint for the line with a HR already at 178 (= 99% of previous HRmax of 179). Had I looked down at my HRM I would have probably thrown the towel in, but I was too busy trying to stay with the front guys so pushed on.

DD

 

[Bobby Lex]

I've reached new "highs" for maximum hr in races on several occasions. The thrill of the event, the competition, the adrenaline, all combine to make you push yourself harder than otherwise, resulting in a higher max heart rate than you previously thought. Not unusual.

Keep in mind, too, that 183 vs. 178 is only a .02 variation. Not really "way higher".

BTW, good job on your first race.

Bob

 

[Dirty Digger]

Just as a postscript to my original Q and for readers info.

On Sat I again hit 183 on the finish line of the the same *short (30 mins) and intensive* crit. So the new HRmax of 183 seems genuine..... for a sprint finish.....

The next day during a 50 km road race I consistently maxed out at 179 on hills (including a solo attack I launced near the summit... which was unsuccesful...), but hit 181 on the sprint finish.

So my own gut-feeling, non-scientific conclusion to this is that I perhaps have two HRmax: one for (mid-race, continous) hill climbing; and one for sprint finishes depending upon the length of the event. The shorter, more intensive the event, the higher the potential HRmax.

It's as if the mind/body/heart knows not to cook itself prematurely?

Dirty Digger
p.s. I deliberately kept my eye off my HRM during both races to avoid any mental influence ('eeeks, I am already maxed out') and just looked at the graphs/data later on.

 

[Orange Fish]

So my own gut-feeling, non-scientific conclusion to this is that I perhaps have two HRmax: one for (mid-race, continous) hill climbing; and one for sprint finishes depending upon the length of the event. The shorter, more intensive the event, the higher the potential HRmax.

It's as if the mind/body/heart knows not to cook itself prematurely?

You only have one max HR value. Sure, you may see what you thought was your max go above and beyond the call of duty in a sprint finish of a race, but regardless, that's your max. You just can't have two.

That "mid-race, continuous hill climbing" HR is probably better labeled as your [very approximate] threshold, rather than max HR #2. But good job in raising your max HR regardless!

 

[Dirty Digger]

That "mid-race, continuous hill climbing" HR is probably better labeled as your [very approximate] threshold, rather than max HR #2. But good job in raising your max HR regardless!

Thanks for feedback.

Are you refering to LT? Because that is not what I was trying to describe. What I meant was that 179 seems to be the maximum/peak I can reach during hill climbs. I can't sustain 179 up a hill. Usually just pop 179 at the crest.

DD

 

[RapDaddyo]

You only have one max HR value.

True that. And the gold standard for measuring MHR is a Bengal Tiger preserve in India. They helicopter cyclists in to a spot on a flat road 3 miles from a gate. They measure HR immediately upon exiting the preserve and that is the only absolutely official max HR. I understand that the 18% who have survived the test are thrilled to know their true MHR. Imagine the power/weight ratio of those 500 LB cats.

 

[Orange Fish]

True that. And the gold standard for measuring MHR is a Bengal Tiger preserve in India. They helicopter cyclists in to a spot on a flat road 3 miles from a gate. They measure HR immediately upon exiting the preserve and that is the only absolutely official max HR. I understand that the 18% who have survived the test are thrilled to know their true MHR. Imagine the power/weight ratio of those 500 LB cats.

hahahahaha!!

 

[vuce]

Thanks for feedback.

Are you refering to LT? Because that is not what I was trying to describe. What I meant was that 179 seems to be the maximum/peak I can reach during hill climbs. I can't sustain 179 up a hill. Usually just pop 179 at the crest.

DD

generally, hr max is measured in a test on a climb, starting slowly, building up speed every minute, and when you can't go any faster, standing on the pedals and sprinting to the top (i mean, untill you die ). That's why it's nothing wrong with reaching your hr max in a sprint.

it was quite the same situation here... my "previous" mr max was 211, a few weeks ago i raeached 223 at the top of 300 m 10% hill. I couldn't believe it so i tried again a week later reaching 219.

btw, i wouldn't bother that much with hr max, every good training should be based on your LT heart rate, so just do a conconi and don't wory that much about Hrmax

 

[mitosis]

I know ric won't agree with me here but if you want your true max heart rate you will have to get off your bike and run.

LIke with the bike, warm up for 15-20 minutes then find about a kilometre you can stretch out. start of at a steady jog and gradually increase speed until you are about to drop, like way out of your comfort zone.

Make sure you are fit.

Unless you are a long-time highly trained fit cyclist this will give you a higher heart rate than you will achieve on a bike.

 

[vuce]

I know ric won't agree with me here but if you want your true max heart rate you will have to get off your bike and run.

LIke with the bike, warm up for 15-20 minutes then find about a kilometre you can stretch out. start of at a steady jog and gradually increase speed until you are about to drop, like way out of your comfort zone.

Make sure you are fit.

Unless you are a long-time highly trained fit cyclist this will give you a higher heart rate than you will achieve on a bike.

that's quite true, but taht hr max wont work as a base cycling training. Max hr differ with different sports. At running, hr is (usually) much higher than at cycling, where it is higher than at swimming for example (achieving 90% of running hr max will most definitely result in drowning yourself ).

 

[ric_stern/RST]

that's quite true, but taht hr max wont work as a base cycling training. Max hr differ with different sports. At running, hr is (usually) much higher than at cycling, where it is higher than at swimming for example (achieving 90% of running hr max will most definitely result in drowning yourself ).

not in trained cyclists, who typically, on average, record their highest HRmax while cycling, along with their highest VO2max on the bike.

ric

 

[ric_stern/RST]

btw, i wouldn't bother that much with hr max, every good training should be based on your LT heart rate, so just do a conconi and don't wory that much about Hrmax

This is untrue. Many sports scientist who don't prescribe training based on power output prescribe training from HRmax (e.g., British Cycling).

It's highly unlikely that anyone bases training on LT HR, what you possibly mean is the average HR from a ~1-hr TT, which is significantly different to lactate threshold (and as for LT HR...!)

The Conconi test (apart from being completely discredited) never purported to estimate LT, but to estimate some form of TT effort.

Ric

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

Many sports scientists who don't prescribe training based on power output prescribe training from HRmax (e.g., British Cycling).

Ric

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here Ric, but to me it seems that you are saying that many sports scientists don't advocate the type of training I'm doing over in the "Killing me" thread. If I've read this correctly, where do you actually stand on this issue?

 

[ric_stern/RST]

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here Ric, but to me it seems that you are saying that many sports scientists don't advocate the type of training I'm doing over in the "Killing me" thread. If I've read this correctly, where do you actually stand on this issue?

i'm not sure, i've not read the thread. can you sum it up briefly for me? (just PM me).

cheers
ric

 

[vuce]

This is untrue. Many sports scientist who don't prescribe training based on power output prescribe training from HRmax (e.g., British Cycling).

It's highly unlikely that anyone bases training on LT HR, what you possibly mean is the average HR from a ~1-hr TT, which is significantly different to lactate threshold (and as for LT HR...!)

The Conconi test (apart from being completely discredited) never purported to estimate LT, but to estimate some form of TT effort.

Ric

recording to Friel, that is LTHR or lactat treshold heart rate. Below LTHR is sub-treshold zone, and above it is super-treshold zone.

 

[sidewind]

Maybe I misunderstand what you are saying here Ric, but to me it seems that you are saying that many sports scientists don't advocate the type of training I'm doing over in the "Killing me" thread. If I've read this correctly, where do you actually stand on this issue?

I'm not Ric, but I suppose that a power based coach could say:

"Ride 2*20 min on your 1-h TT power"

When non-power based coach would say

"Ride 2*20 min on your 1-h TT HR".

And not that those non-power based coaches wouldn't accept the ideas behind power measurements, but just concidering that every rider just doesn't have power measurement device, but might have a HRM.

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

i'm not sure, i've not read the thread. can you sum it up briefly for me? (just PM me).

cheers
ric

Now that's an interesting revelation. In a thread that's been running for more than 4 months with getting on towards 20,000 views, not one of the views belongs to you. Well, I guess we are all entitled to be selective as to which threads we choose to read, but I think curiosity would have gotten the better of me, if only just to take one peek.

Anyway, forget my question, it really doesn't matter what you meant as I shall continue on the path I have chosen toward improving my cycling.

 

[Sillyoldtwit]

I'm not Ric, but I suppose that a power based coach could say:

"Ride 2*20 min on your 1-h TT power"

When non-power based coach would say

"Ride 2*20 min on your 1-h TT HR".

And not that those non-power based coaches wouldn't accept the ideas behind power measurements, but just concidering that every rider just doesn't have power measurement device, but might have a HRM.

Thanks for your answer SW, I fully understand what you're saying. However, it seems a little strange to me to base a training regimen on something you think most athletes would have, and not on something that you think they wouldn't possess.(although you might find the latter to be more beneficial)