Cyclists' hearts: Why elite cyclists die in their sleep (7 min video)

[medlifecrisis]

There's a lot said about safe HR and I would try to get away from obsessing over your max HR. In your 20s it probably makes sod all difference but as we all get a bit older big spikes in HR and BP are *possibly* less desirable. I say possibly as most of the evidence is anecdotal. We see higher rates of blood pressure-related problems in older athletes who pursue very aggressive interval training with sudden changes in BP. Andrew Marr certainly attributes his stroke to this - who knows if that's true? (his stroke was caused by a dissection, ie the blood vessel lining tore, not the 'usual' stroke which is a blood clot) But I do know that there is not really any good evidence for very aggressive interval training over more conventional training regimens. Also, other things like fainting etc are more common with insane levels of exertion.

For long term health the priorities are to do an exercise that keeps your HR up, but not necessarily aiming for super high. 85% is a good target - no suggestion of an incremental benefit above this. I think it's good to cultivate habits you can maintain throughout life, even if you're currently young.

An alternative was proposed to 220-age which was 208 - (age x 0.7) which makes max HR above 40 a bit higher and below a bit lower.

EDIT: So to summarise, I don't think aiming for the highest max HR is unsafe for the vast majority of people, but it will increase risk of several problems in *some* people and there's no evidence it's beneficial vs HR ~85% max.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I don't think aiming for the highest max HR is unsafe for the vast majority of people, but it will increase risk of several problems in *some* people and there's no evidence it's beneficial vs HR ~85% max.

Thank you, Doc.
I introduced a formula earlier in the thread: Nes et al (2012) found the best fit to be HRmax = 211 − (0.64 × age) with a 10 beat standard deviation.
My aspect is that of an athlete, not one who's suffered heart problems. I would not expect the latter to be trying to test HRmax except under medical direction and supervision on a treadmill.
Very few are going to 'aim for the max HR' except when they wish to test/check their HRmax and even then, you can't stay on HRmax - if you can it isn't your HRmax: you didn't try hard enough on the final stretch of hill. The reason for doing this is that an athlete can then use an HRM to guide them with their higher quality work (training). It is also more useful to use HR range (ie HRmax minus HRmin (basal)) and then apply 70% and 80% and whatever. A good proportion of the exercising community will benefit (once max twice a week, not on sequential days) from exercising at 85% of their HR range (eg resting 50, HRmax 190, range 140, 85% = 119, HR to aim at = 50 + 119 = 169). Such exercise will be close to (above or below) AT and will be good for short intervals (ie with rests in between). As with all hard exercise, work up to it (ie week by week) and warm up before it.

 

[bpsmith]

Can I assume that it’s not possible to ride at MaxHR for an hour and still feel fine?

At 40, the guided MaxHR calculation is 208 - (40 x 0.7), therefore 180. I can ride for an hour above this with no issues or high perceived exertion.

Just shows that there is no magic formula that fits everyone?

 

[uclown2002]

Can I assume that it’s not possible to ride at MaxHR for an hour and still feel fine?

At 40, the guided MaxHR calculation is 208 - (40 x 0.7), therefore 180. I can ride for an hour above this with no issues or high perceived exertion.

Just shows that there is no magic formula that fits everyone?

Your max HR can't be determined by a formula. @Ajax Bay suggested a method up-thread if you're curious. When you do hit it you won't be capable of continuing as you will be toast.

@Ajax Bay's formula works best for me, getting within 4bpm (54years old) of my real max HR.

 

[bpsmith]

Your max HR can't be determined by a formula. @Ajax Bay suggested a method up-thread if you're curious. When you do hit it you won't be capable of continuing as you will be toast.

@Ajax Bay's formula works best for me, getting within 4bpm of my real max HR.

Did read that in fairness. Planning to do some testing soon, but on my bike rather than running.

 

[ColinJ]

Can I assume that it’s not possible to ride at MaxHR for an hour and still feel fine?

It's like the difference between a sprinter running 100 metres and an endurance runner doing a marathon. You can't run a marathon at 100 metre pace!

I would imagine that a 100 metre runner trying hard will get very close to his/her maximum heart rate. If that distance is a bit too short, then I'm sure that a 400 metre run would be long enough.

 

[bpsmith]

It's like the difference between a sprinter running 100 metres and an endurance runner doing a marathon. You can't run a marathon at 100 metre pace!

Which therefore disproves all of the above formulas being able to fit everyone single one of us.

 

[screenman]

[QUOTE 5123388, member: 9609"]what is the point in working out max heart rate ? if it is to somehow try and establish your aerobic/anaerobic threshold then considering the discrepancies and differences noted on here for MHR would the resulting figure just be a bit meaningless ?[/QUOTE]

80% of your max would still be 80% of your max though, others would maybe different but the same %

 

[ColinJ]

Which therefore disproves all of the above formulas being able to fit everyone single one of us.

It is the absolute maximum. The sprinter running a marathon would not hit it, but the marathon runner sprinting flat out would.

A formula for MHR is only a guess. My HR hit 199 bpm on a steep climb when I was aged 35+. I was pretty much flat out so my MHR was probably around 200-202 bpm. 220-age would have suggested a MHR of <= 185 bpm. 208-(0.7*age) would have given a similar figure.

 

[Crackle]

Here's a different question for our welcome expert. In a trained elite athlete would you expect to see the same rhythm from an ECG as for an untrained athlete?

 

[screenman]

[QUOTE 5123413, member: 9609"]but if the calculation of max heart rate has such poor correlation with real world results then is the 80% figure to be relied upon?[/QUOTE]

You can do a test for mhr, I have done a few back in the past, it is not fun.

 

[Slick]

It is the absolute maximum. The sprinter running a marathon would not hit it, but the marathon runner sprinting flat out would.

A formula for MHR is only a guess. My HR hit 199 bpm on a steep climb when I was aged 35+. I was pretty much flat out so my MHR was probably around 200-202 bpm. 220-age would have suggested a MHR of <= 185 bpm. 208-(0.7*age) would have given a similar figure.

Just out of interest, how do you know you hadn't already passed your Mhr?

 

[ColinJ]

Just out of interest, how do you know you hadn't already passed your Mhr?

Because that would involve a completely new definition of the word 'maximum'!

It isn't maximum safe, maximum sensible, maximum comfortable, maximum something else ... it is your absolute maximum busting-a-gut, agonising, unsustainable, scary, exhausting MAXIMUM!

If you have to ask yourself if you could have tried harder, then that was NOT your maximum. It is the effort that you would make to escape a hungry predator that fancied having you for lunch, NOT the effort you would make when running to catch a bus!

 

[Slick]

Because that would involve a completely new definition of the word 'maximum'!

It isn't maximum safe, maximum sensible, maximum comfortable, maximum something else ... it is your absolute maximum busting-a-gut, agonising, unsustainable, scary, exhausting MAXIMUM!

If you have to ask yourself if you could have tried harder, then that was NOT your maximum. It is the effort that you would make to escape a hungry predator that fancied having you for lunch, NOT the effort you would make when running to catch a bus!

Ok, I get that, so how does you hitting 199 mean your maximum is 202 or whatever. How does everyone measure busting a gut outside the lab?

 

[jefmcg]

[QUOTE 5123530, member: 9609"]is there not a test for max aerobic[/QUOTE]
https://www.brianmac.co.uk/mobile//hrm3.htm